(PhysOrg.com) -- A study recently released by a team from Northwestern University and the University of Arizona shows that religion and religious affiliations may be on the verge of extinction in the nine countries studied. Utilizing a mathematical model of nonlinear dynamics, the team analyzed data from censuses taken in nine different countries dating as far back as a century.

The team studied Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the Netherlands because these countries had gathered census information on religious affiliations for as long as a century.

Results came back from the data analyzed that these nine countries were showing an increase in responses by individuals categorizing themselves as non-affiliated with religion. Data shows that the non-affiliation percentage in the Netherlands is 40 percent and the highest number seen was in the Czech Republic with 60 percent.

The team took those percentages and applied the nonlinear dynamics model they created, with parameters adjusted for the merits of membership in a non-religious category. The theory behind this non-affiliation increase boils down to something similar to social networking. Groups with larger numbers and more members offer more attraction to be a part of. The bigger a group, the more members they are able to draw in.

With people perceiving a greater benefit from not being affiliated with a religion, the idea that they will draw in more people of the same belief leads to the idea of religious extinction in the countries studied.

One of the teams members, Daniel Abrams of Northwestern University, used a similar mathematical model in 2003 to show the reasoning behind the decline in certain world languages being spoken. It shows that the decline in such languages as Welsh could be connected to the societal gain given to speaking a language such as English over the more regional Welsh language.

The paper also suggests that this basic theory could be used and applied to any social system, suggesting things such as smokers versus non-smokers. With this idea in mind, one can see a similar idea. With the laws changing worldwide to ban smokers, and the stigma placed on them, the social benefit is no longer there, leading many to quit and the draw for new smokers no longer there.

The researchers believe that by using the mathematics of dynamical systems and perturbation theory, the ability to better understand and make assumptions in human behavior will be possible.

Egypt's Ministry of Antiquities says American archeologists have discovered a 3000-year-old tomb with beautifully painted walls belonging to a nobleman who guarded the temple of the ancient deity Amun.

A partial human skull unearthed in 2008 in northern Israel may hold some clues as to when and where humans and Neanderthals might have interbred. The key to addressing this, as well as other important issues, ...

User comments : 557

Reason being is because scientists have excluded religion from their theories and those same scientist proclaim their theories as being the absolute truth, thereby influencing public opinion. Once science theories begin to include religion will surveys show a different trend.

Once science theories begin to include religion will surveys show a different trend.

wow...

Science doesn't intentionally exclude religion. This happens organically as the core beliefs of most religions have NO scientific basis. If there was scientific evidence for God, if God qualified as a valid scientific theory to explain anything (and it doesn't, for several reasons, but primarily inherent non-falsifiability), then science would include religious beliefs... but this is not the case.

Science doesn't intentionally exclude religion. This happens organically as the core beliefs of most religions have NO scientific basis. If there was scientific evidence for God, if God qualified as a valid scientific theory to explain anything (and it doesn't, for several reasons, but primarily inherent non-falsifiability), then science would include religious beliefs... but this is not the case.

A little birdie has told me that is about to change. Remember the words "change" and "hope?"

Reason being is because scientists have excluded religion from their theories and those same scientist proclaim their theories as being the absolute truth, thereby influencing public opinion. Once science theories begin to include religion will surveys show a different trend.

And how exactly is science supposed to include religion? Science is the study of the real world, not Alice in Wonderland.

CHollman, thanks for providing a reasoned and considered response. I'd have been much less patient.

Tabula, theistic beliefs have failed every predictive and falsifiable experiment that they've been subject to. Religion is not taken seriously in science for exactly the same reason as flat-earth and phlogistron theories. Deal with it.

My hypothesis: The last century has seen the rise of it becoming socially acceptable to not be affiliated with a religion. This factor is probably responsible for 50%-75% of these values.

Years ago it was probably not even given as an option on census forms to have no religion. People who didn't believe in anything probably just put what their parent believed etc. Non-practicing members of religions have been around for a long time, and until recently religion was a larger piece of overall culture than it is today.

lol... He claims to have secret knowledge, granted to him by "the ancients", which will turn upside down all our understandings of life, the universe, and everything... He won't elaborate though, because he hasn't figured out yet how to make enough profit from it. That is, he's a crank ;-)

"As a physicist and historian of science James Hannam shows in his brilliant new book, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, without the scholarship of the "barbaric" Middle Ages, modern science simply would not exist."The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

"As a physicist and historian of science James Hannam shows in his brilliant new book, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, without the scholarship of the "barbaric" Middle Ages, modern science simply would not exist."The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

As for the article, I suspect the authors did not model Muslims.

really, does he talk about Galileo? and how Christianity helped spread his scientific theory?

Any serious study about religion and science will show that scientific progress were made not thanks to religion but despite religion.

"As a physicist and historian of science James Hannam shows in his brilliant new book, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, without the scholarship of the "barbaric" Middle Ages, modern science simply would not exist."The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

As for the article, I suspect the authors did not model Muslims.

really, does he talk about Galileo? and how Christianity helped spread his scientific theory?

Any serious study about religion and science will show that scientific progress were made not thanks to religion but despite religion.

Religions will spread knowledge as far as that knowledge isn't considered heretical to the core beliefs. Once knowledge refutes or disputes a core tenet of a belief, that belief will assault and slander that knowledge regardless of the vector. This is the problem with dogma and incredulity.

"Nevertheless it's impossible not to notice who led the way in medieval natural philosophy:- A mathematician Pope at the turn of the last millennium.- A monk in 1092 who used an astrolabe to construct the lunar calendar.- St. Anselm and Peter Abelard, clerics who elevated the role of reason and logic in philosophy and theology.- Cathedral school scholars who taught that "God is loving and consistent rather than capricious and arbitrary" paving the way for the study of a consistently operating world of nature.- The universities, products of the Church.- The church's condemnation of certain (not all) Aristotelian dogmas, which - opened the door for experimental study rather restricting natural philosophy to Aristotle's pure reasoning.- A Polish clergyman, Copernicus, who challenged Aristotelian and Ptolemaic views of the heavens. "James Hannam

"Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was inspired by both his professors at university and his colleagues at the monastery to study variation in plants, and he conducted his study in the monastery's two hectare[7] experimental garden, which was originally planted by the abbot Napp in 1830."Imagine, a monk the father of modern genetics. What was the religion of this monk? Catholic ChristianHere is a link to monastery: http://www.opatbr...t_en.htm

Reason being is because scientists have excluded religion from their theories and those same scientist proclaim their theories as being the absolute truth, thereby influencing public opinion. Once science theories begin to include religion will surveys show a different trend.

TabulaMentis, Donutz: While you two are obviously on opposing sides of this and a the general religion debate. However, I would personally say that you both suffer from the same problem, which is trying to find overall unity to science and religion. When you take a stance that the two subjects are completely different, which I think they are, you don't run into this type of problem. Science is the study of the natural universe. The Christian (+Muslim, +Jewish, +Others) are a study (if you want to call it that) if the non-physical, unmeasurable qualities of our lives.

POETICO, human nature is the root of all evil, our ability to change pure into un-pure is amazing.

epsi00,Skeptic_Heretic; I haven't read this book, but maybe I will. I think your disdain for religion may have blinded you to the areas that it has actually improved things. I propose that even Romans/Greek rel. were early forms of science as people tried to understand their world, no matter far they missed the mark.

Wow Paulie Mac, you sure showed your true colors right there. "So?" ryggesogn2 just gave a number of historical, correct interpretations of the fact that the Church and its followers were at least among the foundations of Science, and your response is "so". Guess you had nothing better to say to answer him.

Individuals choose their own path, and yes, many times in the past some religious individuals have seen Science as an affront to their beliefs, but so many more have seen it as a confirmation of them, including myself.

There were several Medieval religious institutions that promoted preserving, studying and expanding on the accumulated knowledge of the natural world of the Ancient Greeks, Egyptians and the more contemporary Arabs, all for the purpose of glorifying their god, of course, who played a large role in the resurgence of literacy and the early advancement of science that marked the Renaissance and later Enlightenment.

There were many more, of course, who were devoted to the destruction of that knowledge as blasphemy against that same god and who were largely responsible for Europe's centuries of Dark Ages after the fall of Rome.

The fact that some sects of a religion preserved some knowledge, though they did not greatly add to those stores, and helped lay the foundations for science does not much help the fundamentalist's case. The first scientific position was the fundamentalist's position, that it is not now indicates how badly wrong the fundamentalist's case is, when tested.

Results came back from the data analyzed that these nine countries were showing an increase in responses by individuals categorizing themselves as non-affiliated with religion.

Before we all get our science and religion panties all in a bunch, what data are referred to here? A response from an unknown number of Czechs or any other of the populations suggests little, save for responding at all to researchers. And non-affiliation has less to do with behavior, lesser still, with belief.

Because you respond in the negative to an affiliation with MIT, CalTech or your 4-H Club, you dont believe in science?

Like we needed a study to know this is happening. Humanity, for the most part, is getting smarter and able to understand the complexities of physics and biology. I.E, there doesn't need to be a GOD for complex emergence to naturally occur (duh, it has already). Darwin knew this before 1859. And now the rest of the world is catching up. If there was any actual evidence of a god or creator, creationism/religion would no longer be "supernatural" but studied as Science.

And if a GOD were ever to be proven, it would likely be an advanced civilization (older than 14.7 bil years) that created our entire universe and is not involved in any way.

Wow Paulie Mac, you sure showed your true colors right there. "So?" ryggesogn2 just gave a number of historical, correct interpretations of the fact that the Church and its followers were at least among the foundations of Science, and your response is "so". Guess you had nothing better to say to answer him.

So? Do you have any proof that they achieved scientific discoveries because of their Christianity and not because some other factor?

Here is an example of your logic : Nazi had many breakthrough in many different areas (for example: rocket sceince), so Nazism helped science greatly. If it wasn't for Nazism modern science would simply not exist.

Here is an example of your logic : Nazi had many breakthrough in many different areas (for example: rocket sceince), so Nazism helped science greatly. If it wasn't for Nazism modern science would simply not exist.

Where did they get their ideas for eugenics?"Eugenics has had a religious dimension. Galton suggested that it should function as a religion, and this proposal was echoed by George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel and others. In the United States shortly after the turn of the century, the American Journal of Eugenics advertised itself by noting that it was "formerly known as Lucifer the Light Bearer.""And it didn't die out with the NAZIs:"In 1970, I. I. Gottesman, a director of the American Eugenics Society, defined it in this way: "The essence of evolution is natural selection; the essence of eugenics is the replacement of 'natural' selection by conscious, premeditated, or artificial selection in the hope of speeding up the evolution of 'desirable' characteristics...

ironic how strict scientific minds embrace the intolerace that they point out religions are guilty ofit is also interesting that christian prophecy says worship will be banned in the end timesand interesting how the educated read the bible like a book instead of good instruction which causes them to miss many good points

one fellow said there is no science in the bible and that is totally untrue

of course one sided arguing only results in shooting down gods word so why take ownership?

the level of vengeance TV and movies it seems like intolerance teachings are really paying off!

so have fun living in a world with people who could care less about gods laws like loving your neighbor by practicing tolerance and forgivness, not slandering one another, helping the needy, valuing the family model by raising children with love and respect for one another and them also

it is in fact men that are flawed - banning religion will only shed more light on that absolute fac

Good point EvgenijM, but I don't think that is the point, and I find you bringing up Nazism to be trap in ill taste. I didn't ever say that without Christianity modern science would not exist. I will say that I think it would be much further behind. And I will even go so far as to say that the same is true for Nazism, although for different reasons.The Church kept knowledge, discovered in the past, recorded during the dark ages, and encouraged in some cases scientific exploration afterwards, even if they didn't like the results. Nazism caused a wave of research on both sides in attempt to win the war.

Please refer to ryggesogn2's post for examples of individuals, who in many cases were in service to the church, who pushed science forward and cases where the Christian church purposefully aided Science. No it wouldn't have been the Christianity in them pushing science forward, but their faith was most likely very central and integral in who they were and the decisions they made.

epsi00,Skeptic_Heretic; I haven't read this book, but maybe I will. I think your disdain for religion may have blinded you to the areas that it has actually improved things.

really? you should maybe ask all those who suffer sexual abuse at the hands of the religious clergy to tell you how their has been improved. And we know that the practice of sexual abuse has not started yesterday.

Considering that the religious infrastructure of Christianity holds the lion's share of responsibility for the centuries long duration of the Dark Ages prior to the rise of science, I doubt very much that that religion can claim credit for accelerating it's growth. It is at least equally likely that it would be much further along had it not been for the millennium of deception, destruction, and domination practiced by its adherents and authorities before modern science arose.

epsi00,Skeptic_Heretic; I haven't read this book, but maybe I will. I think your disdain for religion may have blinded you to the areas that it has actually improved things. [q/]

really? You should ask the ones who suffer sexual abuse at the hand of the religious clergy and ask them how their lives has been improved. And maybe take your kids to a daycare run by the church if you trust them that much.

And we know that sexual abuse by the church has not started yesterday. So yes, I have a big problem with all religions.

"Nevertheless it's impossible not to notice who led the way in medieval natural philosophy: (Long list removed see post above)James Hannam

Mr Hannam needs an education. None of those points you outline are accurately attributed to their originators.

epsi00,Skeptic_Heretic; I haven't read this book, but maybe I will. I think your disdain for religion may have blinded you to the areas that it has actually improved things. I propose that even Romans/Greek rel. were early forms of science as people tried to understand their world, no matter far they missed the mark.

I have disdain for incredulity. If the adherants fo a religion, or the structure of that religion encourages incredulity, then I have a problem with their aim.

When will people learn that they dont need to label thmself with a religion? You dont need a religion to believe in God or Jesus.

Anyway, its funny how these people think the bible is the absolute truth and all and how scientists are anti-religious(which is nonsense, i am sure there are religious scientists). Historians that actually study the bible, can probably name a dozen of contradictions in the bible without even looking at historical diggings, know alot more about multiple religions, and yet these religious nutbags claim to know they are so better than these historians.

And we know that the practice of sexual abuse has not started yesterday.

Although it's become customary in some circles to associate sexual abuse with church professionals we must not forget that 90 percent of cases of sexual abuse take place in "normal" families. Their victims don't deserve to be publicly neglected.

Following this article I predict a wave of bicycle riding 18-20 year old's in slacks and a white button down appearing on the streets of "Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the Netherlands".

espi00 - your comment about sexual abuse by individuals that happen to be priests or whatever is really stupid, but that has been covered already by frajo.

panorama, you and some others need a bit of a lesson in the meaning of the word religion. It is widely accepted IMO that religion refers to the gov., or demonination of a faith such as the Roman Catholic Church, or Baptist Church etc. What kaasinees is referring to is that it is possible to read, understand and believe in the Bibles message without those institutions.

Frajo is correct, not all take everything in the Bible as absolute truths. I agree with Theistic Evolution myself. The Bible is a complex text which is part History, part Theology. Also lots of poetry and ancient myth.

About preaching here. The one thing that should be preached about here is understanding. Why do these discussions start? See posts 4,5,6 TabMentis, axemaster, donutz <=NO RESPECT FOR THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS.

We are two minutes into the thread. Maybe Otto hasn't seen the fruits of his vendetta yet.

Gott sei danke. I been busy. Religions are only kept active in regions where they are still NEEDED. Elsewhere they are discouraged, denied, destroyed. Praise Empire.

And how exactly is science supposed to include religion? Science is the study of the real world

The engineered religions we are familiar with were methodically Designed to serve a sociopolitical Purpose. They have been essential to the spread of Order throughout the world by demanding that adherents outreproduce their enemies and then annihilate them with glee, and be annihilated in turn. Incredible technological Progress and social cohesion has been the direct result. We are on the verge of colonizing the inner system because our House is in order.

They have done their job well but their time is past. Humanity has grown and doesnt need bedtime stories to make us feel warm and comfy anymore. Their end is nigh!!ha ha

There is a difference between discussing and preaching. Some people here come with the mindset of "the bible is the ultimate answer"(kevinrts??) or "anarchaich capitalism will protect my propertaaah"(rya something dude)

And we know that the practice of sexual abuse has not started yesterday.

...90 percent of cases of sexual abuse take place in "normal" families. Their victims don't deserve to be publicly neglected.

And what is the relative percentage per capita I wonder? Was this sort of behavior encouraged in seminaries? Without disparaging gays in general, is it a coincidence that the religion is designed around a supposedly celebate, long-haired, softspoken love god who travels surrounded by an all male entourage save for his mum and the token harlot?

Consider the virgin mary, who gave birth without being sullied by the touch of a man. What 2 better icons to attract a vilified minority to a reclusive life in monasteries and nunneries. And who would provide more loyal service? An ancient, pagan, pre-xian tradition of dionysian eunichs and vestal virgins. Charlemagne condemned the debauchery in these places.

So...is our consciousness and awareness of reality the result of complete random chance on how the universe and our earth formed? If it is just an arrangement of particles that make up our consciousness and reality, does that mean that we will be reincarnated in another universe elsewhere instead of an afterlife? The particles that make us up just have to arrange that way again.

and that practised carpentry, there is some historical thruths in biblical texts.

I said nothing of carpentry, also, wasn't the jesus in your fairy tales the son of a carpenter. The time I've read the bible I don't recall the texts where jesus rolled up his sleeves and grabbed a planer. Get back to me when you have a point.

panorama, you and some others need a bit of a lesson in the meaning of the word religion.

As a person who was raised catholic, spent many years as a methodist, dabbled in judaism, and finally is the leader of their own church (First Church of the Last Resort) I think I know a thing or two about religion...IMO.

Scientists have not been able to explain the origin of the big bang. Religion will and only religion can because the math will not add up for any other theory agnostic or atheist scientists try to feed us.

Wow Panorama, are you a cult leader? at least tell me its one like Scientology in that you intend to use it to bilk celebrities out of their money. Oh and smart people do use their mind to think about religion, smart people both in and outside of religion. The big problem is those that just accept what they are told, it makes for believers with no knowledge and disbelievers that don't know why they disbelieve.

Tabula, I don't think religion needs to make a comeback. Unfortunately its alive and well. Belief in something bigger than $ or randomness on the other hand.

GhostofOtto is another situation all together. Its hard to interpret what you mean. Its obvious that you have some sort of problem with religion. Please tell us what you believe in, don't mince words or wax poetic, just strait forward.

btw I like how your profile quotes a Bible verse. You've done a good job in misrepresenting its intentions by quoting out of context.

TabulaMentis, do you think that saying things like that actually would have any sway in the minds of people who think its all bullcrap anyway? It won't, do yourself a favor and stop stirring up hornets nests, when the only defense you have is a cocktail sword.

The simple matter is that there is less and less for God to do. People used to see natural phenomena as God's direct intervention; now we know they're the result of purely natural, non-supernatural processes.

We now know that every creation story is false. Traditional cosmology is false. And much Biblical prophesy is based on mmistranslation (It's not "a virgin with conceive", but "a young woman (Hebrew: "almah") will concieve) (http://ohr.edu/as...0j.htm). Most morality is common sense, custom, and self-preservation, and now cience can tell us how we and the world got here and why it is like it is.

In short, we don't need religion except to relate to entities which we cannot even know with certainty exist, whom we only know about through religion, and whose alleged intervention in human affairs may really just be coincidence and natural phenomena.

Thank heaven we are evolving beyond Paleolithic religionism. I have studied comparative theology for 4 decades - nothing has had a more destructive influence on human development, caused more human suffering, genocidal death, the destruction of cultural heritage, the repression of scientific discovery, than the religious impulse, even more so than pandemic disease or militarism. I wonder how many here have studied the Chalcedonian Edict, the banning of Origenism under Justinian and Theodora, the Malleus Maleficarum, Inquisitions under Torquemada, the list goes on. Thank heaven we are evolving to greater rationality. I firmly believe in an inattributably intelligent universe, but never in the "great puppeteer," revengeful and jealous, commanding the destruction of entire nations, their women, children, yea, even unto their animals. He's welcome to go the hell of their own design. Drooling, nail-biting evangelism insisting on a heaven-hell polarity, misunderstands contextual objectivity.

"Religion on the verge of extinction"... Best news I've heard all day. I have to say thank you to all that have posted on here. I have read through all of them with great amusement. I openly declare myself as Atheist, and proud of it. I do however respect those with simplistic minds and their need for religion so that they can have a structured life. I have no need of a caveman ideology to dictate my morals and the way I view life. I don't believe we as Humans are of any higher intelligence than we were 2,000+ years ago, but rather our knowledge base is in orders of magnitude greater than what we had possessed, and our willingness to see possibilities. I think that if someone was able to travel back in time and handed Moses an iPad, he would of dropped his tablets much further up the mountain, and would of ran down in horror at the "supernatural" visage.

"Religion on the verge of extinction"... Best news I've heard all day. I have to say thank you to all that have posted on here. I have read through all of them with great amusement. I openly declare myself as Atheist, and proud of it. I do however respect those with simplistic minds and their need for religion so that they can have a structured life. I have no need of a caveman ideology to dictate my morals and the way I view life. I don't believe we as Humans are of any higher intelligence than we were 2,000+ years ago, but rather our knowledge base is in orders of magnitude greater than what we had possessed, and our willingness to see possibilities. I think that if someone was able to travel back in time and handed Moses an iPad, he would of dropped his tablets much further up the mountain, and would of ran down in horror at the "supernatural" visage.

GhostofOtto is another situation all together. Its hard to interpret what you mean. Its obvious that you have some sort of problem with religion. Please tell us what you believe in, don't mince words or wax poetic, just strait forward.

Many people here have a good idea what I'm talking about, as I have spouted many times about it.

btw I like how your profile quotes a Bible verse. You've done a good job in misrepresenting its intentions by quoting out of context.

-Says the noob. Do you think I wrote that for you? Try assuming you don't know what it means and ask politely. Hint: it's sarcasm. Hint: anti-troll warfare.

Ok, a synopsis of ottos theory of grand design. Long long ago in a forest not too far away, 2 chiefs were discussing their mutual problems. "My young braves are a headache. All they want is to fight with yours over resources and women. It will be the end of us both." The other chief smiles. "I've been thinking. Why don't you send out your troublemakers and I'll ambush them for you? And then you can do the same for me." "But how can I trust you?" asks the first chief. "Here, marry my daughter and I'll marry yours. We'll be family." "Yowsa!"

-And a long tradition of planned wars and population control was started that day, which was really just an expression of the Intent of a Tribe of Leaders to Manage the people. Because the people are always the enemy of Leaders.

Obviously it's a little more involved than that. But this neatly explains everything we see in the world today.

When it came to members of religious organizations advancing science, was it that they had the advantage of being able to read and write, at a time when most others, not part of the religious class,did not.

No, religion SAYS it will and people like you will suck it up because it makes you feel good. But it won't. What it will do, is endanger further research as it always has. Which means it could endanger the future of the human race as it always has, because we may not find out enough about how the universe really works in order to protect ourselves when necessary.

This is never a critical thing for religionists because, heck, they'll be in heaven. But there are People who do care, and who know that the only way to immortality of sorts is through the genes and the Knowledge they pass on to their children. People like you will not be allowed to jeopardize that chance. Because you're being Managed don't you know.

When it came to members of religious organizations advancing science, was it that they had the advantage of being able to read and write, at a time when most others, not part of the religious class,did not.

Why would those religionists want their followers to be able to read and write? Why would they want to start universities like Harvard and Yale?

In the beginning was military.So the military spoke:"Let there be light"And there was light.And it was good.And it was nuclear.And Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the Netherlands,saw the light.

And now, graphs once depicting void, now depict light. And it was good.

I do not possess the knowledge base to describe its occurrence. I can speculate on it, but as no one (at least on Earth) possess the knowledge it would be meaningless and trivial to do so, but Humanity loves puzzles and so we pursue it. I can however speculate for you that the "Big Bang" may not have ever occurred. An easy way to look at it is if you take the Space Time fabric and twist it over, you would perceive a point of singularity (Big Bang), however the actual fabric is untouched.

"Now, as a pastor, Im not a believer in superstition. [cackle] Still, some weird, unsettled part of me felt that if we just hunkered down close to home, wed be safe. Finally, though, reason ...won out."

-Obviously an unbiased and rational source, and unquestionable due to the element of children in peril and a cute cover pic. Sorry but hahahaa.

Once I finish the book I have been working on for twenty years, then I will do that. Oh, the religious people back in the eighties gave me all kinds of hell because they did not know what I was up to. Now they do, but the atheists and agnostics do not, but soon they will too. Ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

"The question now was just how much further Christian numbers could grow. If you extrapolate recent Christian growth into the near future, no Muslim majority seems safe, even in a place like Nigeria, where some polls in recent years have suggested an outright Christian majority. ""The new believers draw on Western, and specifically American, forms of evangelism, marketing their faith through videos and DVDs."http://www.amconm...1/00022/What extinction?

"The question now was just how much further Christian numbers could grow. If you extrapolate recent Christian growth into the near future, no Muslim majority seems safe, even in a place like Nigeria, where some polls in recent years have suggested an outright Christian majority. "

But they forgot to point out how the country is already full of internal strife and misery due to overpop and will EXPLODE soon due to rising pressure. Courtesy of RELIGION.

Or, there could be repeated big bangs. Coalescence of matter to the point of explosion - then more coalescence ad infinitum and not necessarily in the same place, but in different places with multiple epi-centers. Perhaps there are more big bangs going on in distant parts of the universe and the matter is coalesced long before it reaches us. We think our universe is expanding, but maybe it's only our big bang that is expanding.

These quotes most likely explain religions logical decline:

- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." - Delos B. McKown

- What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Christopher Hitchens

- I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Stephen Roberts

It aint the parts of the Bible that I cant understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. - Mark Twain

Ah...religion. Here we go again, the crutch and opium for human's mind. Christians is going defensive trying to convince nonbelievers for their God. Muslims are going on the offensive for their God, blowing away those disagree. Buddhists just don't care what others say. Truth is self-evident if you bother to discover it yourself, instead of delegating it to some higher beings to spell it out for you. And who to say that the scribes was able to record in human's languages exactly what the truth is? There is no guarrantee it can be expressed in words.

Or, there could be repeated big bangs. Coalescence of matter to the point of explosion - then more coalescence ad infinitum and not necessarily in the same place, but in different places with multiple epi-centers. Perhaps there are more big bangs going on in distant parts of the universe and the matter is coalesced long before it reaches us. We think our universe is expanding, but maybe it's only our big bang that is expanding.

These quotes most likely explain religions logical decline:"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." - Delos B. McKown- What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. - Christopher Hitchens - I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts- It ain't the parts of the Bible that I cant understand that bother me, it is the part that I do understand. - Mark Twain

Using the food analogy, Truth from the Bible is: "here is good food. You should enjoy it". Truth from the Q'ran is: " here is food, the only food, eat it or die!". Truth from Buddhism is: "Here is the correct recipe for food. Cook it well and you will enjoy your own work." There you have it, folks.

The Tamil Tigers were the first suicide bombers. The Western view of Buddhism is often incredibly inaccurate.

From wikipedia:

The LTTE was also responsible for a 1998 attack on the Buddhist shrine, and UNESCO world heritage site, Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy that killed 8 worshipers. The attack was symbolic in that the shrine, which houses a sacred tooth of the Buddha, is the holiest Buddhist shrine in Sri Lanka.[94] Other Buddhist shrines have been attacked, notably the Sambuddhaloka Temple in Colombo that killed 9 worshipers.[95]

Why would Buddhists attack a Buddhist shrine And kill Buddhists?Typicaly Buddhists dont even believe in killing or even harming other living beings.

Science can always explain how but it will never explain why. I'm not talking about the classic "Why are we here?" For example, science can explain how I am able to taste an apple. It can accurately predict how my taste buds interact with my brain to produce the sensations involved with taste. However it does not explain why an apple tastes the way it does. It does not explain why I taste. It does not explain why an apple exists or why I want to eat it.

My point is, regardless of a belief in religion, there are answers science can never provide. If you argue everything is random, take a look around. The world is too beautiful to be random. A belief in a higher power, regardless of what you call it, can create harmony out of chaos.

..The Tamil Tigers were the first suicide bombers. The Western view of Buddhism is often incredibly inaccurate.

Please check your say sos. Tamil Tigers have links with and helped al-Qaeda. They are more of Muslim fanatics affiliates than Buddhists. Moreover, do you here anywhere their battle cry "Buddha is great!" heh? As for the Westerners' views on many things that came out of the Orient, no disagreement there. Look at how they make an abortion of Yoga in the US by wildy interpreting and inventing.

Once I finish the book I have been working on for twenty years, then I will do that. Oh, the religious people back in the eighties gave me all kinds of hell because they did not know what I was up to. Now they do, but the atheists and agnostics do not, but soon they will too. Ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

I've wrote 4 books at this point in my life. 2 of which have been published with incredibly limited circulation. (nothing even worth note to be quite honest), however I do know the process. If you've been working on a book for 20 years, it's not much of a book, you're not much of an author, and your subject matter is as apparent as your book, which is, to say the most, imaginary.

Time to put up or shut up. Twell us your great secrets, or just stop blathering on about them Mr Kaczor.

..The Tamil Tigers were the first suicide bombers. The Western view of Buddhism is often incredibly inaccurate.

Please check your say sos. Tamil Tigers have links with and helped al-Qaeda. They are Muslim fanatics affiliates rather than Buddhists. Moreover, do you hear anywhere their battle cry "Buddha is great!" heh? A quick Wiki check will suffice. Personally, i knew a person who have relatives in the Tamil Tigers. he had moved out of Sri Lanka and we worked at the same company for 3 years. His religion? Islam. As for the Westerners' views on many things that came out of the Orient, no disagreement there. Look at how they make an abortion of Yoga in the US by wildy interpreting and inventing.

Please check your say sos. Tamil Tigers have links with and helped al-Qaeda. They are more of Muslim fanatics affiliates than Buddhists. Moreover, do you here anywhere their battle cry "Buddha is great!" heh? As for the Westerners' views on many things that came out of the Orient, no disagreement there. Look at how they make an abortion of Yoga in the US by wildy interpreting and inventing.

Kass, Skep,

The Tamil Tigers are predominantly buddhist and minority muslim and hindu. The Tamil fight for liberation from the Sinhalese, or Sri Lankan natives. There is no Al Qaida tie in outside of typical black market terrorist exchange.

"So? Do you have any proof that they achieved scientific discoveries because of their Christianity and not because some other factor?"

A 'Closed Mind' would have no place in my Laboratory!

"Here is an example of your logic : Nazi had many breakthrough in many different areas (for example: rocket sceince), so Nazism helped science greatly. If it wasn't for Nazism modern science would simply not exist. "

As was disclosed in East German Archives: A group of 'Nazi' Scientists risked their lives in choosing NOT to study the Splitting of the Atom . . . they feared for such knowledge in the hands of a madman!Would that Our Scientists have been possessed of such 'Enlightened' benevolence!I maintain that Teller 'Out-Gunned' Oppenheimer, who, upon witnessing what his efforts had wrought, referenced a Quote:"I am become God, Destroyer of Worlds!"

The Tamil Tigers are predominantly buddhist and minority muslim and hindu. The Tamil fight for liberation from the Sinhalese, or Sri Lankan natives. There is no Al Qaida tie in outside of typical black market terrorist exchange.

That's in no way means there is a branch of buddhist terrorists (an oxymoron), as you are trying to imply with your brad stroke of brush. They simply fight for what they believe is their rightful land, with violent means, of which all the people in the world throughout history are guilty one time or another. But they don't push their religion in front of it like a battering ram. Were Tibet is an Islamic land, all sorts of jihadi freedom fighters will "help their brothers" and the Chinese will never have swallowed it without breaking a few teeth. Look at Kasmir. The muslims there will fight (with other helping hands) until the end of time.

You sure it wasn't the kamikaze? There've also been instances of soldiers strapping bombs or grenades to themselves, and diving under tanks or into bunkers, going at least as far back as World War I...

Some say there are no atheists in foxholes; I say there are no Christians in foxholes. Or otherwise, how does it go? "God is love, not hate, thou shalt not kill, I love you man, now die mofo, DIE!!!"

I've wrote 4 books at this point in my life. 2 of which have been published with incredibly limited circulation. (nothing even worth note to be quite honest), however I do know the process. If you've been working on a book for 20 years, it's not much of a book, you're not much of an author, and your subject matter is as apparent as your book, which is, to say the most, imaginary.

A gay atheist once asked me a similar question. His question was as follows: "If you are so religious, then explain where God came from." There was a beginning, contrary to what the fanatics believe. It is a very interesting story.

Any 'explanation', any 'origin', literally anything, we can express, is embedded in our present day understanding and/or comprehension.

By whatever means, we attempt to provide meaning. Even with magic.

When do we understand and comprehend? We understand and comprehend when any 'explanation' is void of any connotation associated with the meaning of the word 'magic'.

At any time, our rule is: Assume everything. When is an assumption no longer an assumption? When all that meaning which is assumed with an assumption is void of the meaning associated with the word magic.

I assume all language is necessary, insufficient, and incomplete.I assume evolution for any language.I assume magic will be extinct.

We understand and comprehend when any 'explanation' is void of any connotation associated with the meaning of the word 'magic'.

Er... not quite. There have been plenty of scientific hypotheses that turned out to be false, and I'm quite sure most of them didn't involve anything remotely identifiable as 'magic'.

At any time, our rule is: Assume everything.

Well, everything that doesn't contradict already-known state and properties of the universe. And then, everything that isn't in itself self-contradictory. And then, that would still make an infinity of assumptions, so you'll never be done assuming. Best to formulate hypotheses only about that which is currently unknown but at least grounded in existing understanding and potentially testable in the near future.

"Like the logistics of buying and selling slaves? Those are good points. Leviticus 25:44-46, how cute."

panorama

here is my simple point

the verses following explain the instruction further

"47 But in case the hand of the alien resident or the settler with you becomes wealthy, and your brother has become poor alongside him and must sell himself to the alien resident or the settler with you, or to a member of the family of the alien resident, 48 after he has sold himself, the right of repurchase will continue in his case. One of his brothers may buy him back."

"55 For to me the sons of Israel are slaves. They are my slaves whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. I am Jehovah YOUR God."

it was their instruction at the time given their circumstances and another step of failure to follow gods laws which led to the propitiatory sacrifice

but that means nothing if you harbor hatred towards your neighbor for the great sins of others

Here is a fact based comedy bit from a major TV channel's prime time, free-to-air comedy/entertainment show from one of the countries listed in the study:

---

Catholic Bishops have authorized a new translation of the bible that doesn't include the word 'booty'. The new American bible will use the terms 'spoils of war' instead of 'booty' to avoid laughter at Sunday school. But don't worry, the cast of the old testament will still beget each others brains out!

The church says the new bible will be more poetic and more accurate - so, I guess, it now starts with: In the beginning we made this shit up! The word virgin is also being replaced with 'young woman' and the holy spirit that gets her pregnant is Vodka.

The new translation is remarkably different - god now makes the world in seven tweets and they're replacing 'blessed are the meek' with 'gay marriage burns my eyes'!

I forgot to mention, I knew a woman who saw a Big Foot sitting on her house watching her one day when she was leaving home. She said it was sort of friendly, but she got out of there without disturbing it.

lets take the smartest man ever and put him on an island with all the necessities except education/law/and previous generational knowledge

I bet that man wont invent glass, sailing, or basic math

He might well invent glass if he was placed on volcanic island. He would come across obsidian deposits and note its useful properties. He would associate it with the volcano and heat and might come across melted sand with similar properties and so start experimenting.

Sailing also wouldn't be a stretch. He can see fallen trees floating in water and how a strong wind pushes him and other objects back and he could combine the two easily enough.

As for basic math, how basic? I'm sure he could start by counting or marking things off on the fingers of his hands to represent quantity. He would have an idea of larger, smaller or the same. A basic form of simple arithmetic could be devised, if not as polished and elegant as we have today. Hell even animals nave a sense of numeracy/quantity.

The countries studied are of a more or less shared cultural heritage (Northern European). I'd be interested in seeing studies done in South American, Asian, and African countries, too. And of course the study only maps the demise of stated religious affiliation in the countries studied, not of personal interest in spirituality or ethics.

Reason being is because scientists have excluded religion from their theories and those same scientist proclaim their theories as being the absolute truth, thereby influencing public opinion. Once science theories begin to include religion will surveys show a different trend.

Not only is this fool thinking that scientists have excluded religion (already discussed and rejected earlier), they have the audacity to suggest that scientists proclaim their knowledge to be "absolute truth", which is simply ridiculous. Show me a scientist who does not enjoy to be shown wrong, and you aren't showing my a scientist. To be shown wrong, is also to be shown what is the better theory.

Mr. Stang's mind forgot to remind him of all those people that are reflecting in solitude for many years upon their religion and their position in the human community before they decide to leave the faith they have been born into.

Tabula, I don't think religion needs to make a comeback. Unfortunately its alive and well.

This "unfortunately" is an indicator of constrained expectations. You constrain your expectation of a society without religion to positive outcomes. _Unfortunately_ history shows that human conditions are not really better when religion (= developed superstition) is absent and primitive superstition prevails.

Mankind will have to evolve to the point where torture, death penalty, aggression wars, economical injustice, and prejudice of any kind (sexual, racial, ethnical) are seen as unthinkable barbarism before religion is not needed anymore by many of mankind's victims.

nothing has had a more destructive influence on human development, caused more human suffering, genocidal death, the destruction of cultural heritage, the repression of scientific discovery, than the religious impulse, even more so than pandemic disease or militarism.

Other generalizers use to blame comunism or socialism or psychotherapy.

I wonder how many here have studied the Chalcedonian Edict, the banning of Origenism under Justinian and Theodora, the Malleus Maleficarum, Inquisitions under Torquemada, the list goes on.

Nice name dropping; but Siddhartha Gautama missing. You know that torture is appreciated by atheists.

Thank heaven we are evolving to greater rationality.

German Nazism and US A-bombs are products of greater rationality? Human evolution as monotonic function?

Yes. At least there are sculptures that look like figurines intended represent things that aren't truely human, presumably some sort of god. Hard to be sure without A writen record.

Of course we ARE certain that there was religion in illiterate iron age peoples. The Norse or the various Celts for instance. Via imagery and Roman writings. So there is no reason to think writing is needed for religion and I sure don't see a reason to think iron is either as the Mayans had writing, religion and no sign of bronze much less iron.

I have read the study, which is basically a maths paper rather than giving any serious attention to the sociology of religion. The key flawed assumption is that the so-called utility of religious affiliation is exactly the same for each citizen in a country. i.e. regardless of whether they are frequent religious attenders, people who only go occasionally, or atheists. This is assumption is clearly untrue. They also assume the utility has changed in the past but will remain constant hereafter. Their model does not represent diversity: they do discuss the case of different social networks (e.g. regions) but then assume the same utility number applies for every group. They do not consider countries where religion is growing faster than non-religion, e.g. Russia and China (the logic of their approach would end up with those becoming 100% religious). They do not consider the interplay between countries where religion is growing and where it is declining. Their model is absurdly simplistic.

Specifically about New Zealand, the drop in census religion is mostly among people who weren't particularly religious anyway (low utility) while the core attenders (high utility) have kept going. The core could be estimated as at least the 20% of New Zealanders who attend religious services at least monthly, or up to the 47% who attend at least yearly for reasons other than weddings and funerals (reference the NZ Election Study 2008). Although overall census numbers have dropped, attendances are rising for some churches/religions. One example is the Methodists, one of New Zealand's bigger denominations, which had been declining for years but confounded predictions of pending extinction by growing at the last census. Similarly I think the overall census religion numbers will not go to extinction but eventually bottom out above the core numbers and start to grow again.

Get 'em while they're young and/or ignorant and/or superstitious. Same old story.

Sorry to disagree, but my friend Zachary who came from Kenya to work as a scientist in the same institute for several years was a most impressively educated guy, fluent in five languages, teaching me everything about the African view of history, and deeply religious. When he went back my Greek wife and I have been the only white persons being invited to his farewell party. You are grossly generalizing.

Yes. At least there are sculptures that look like figurines intended represent things that aren't truely human, presumably some sort of god. Hard to be sure without A writen record.

You assume they had no toys for their offspring, for their lone kids reaching puberty?

Of course we ARE certain that there was religion in illiterate iron age peoples.

Assume whatever you like. I prefer to be strict on definitions of terms like "palaeolithic", "neolithic", "iron age", "religion", "believes", "spiritualism", "certainty" and so on. Shoddy wording doesn't help in controversial discussions. I'd rather defend the other party when "my" party goes muddy. And, yes, that's what I want to be treated like.

Did they get him while he was young, naive, and overly trusting? That's typically the case with the "deeply religious".

You are grossly generalizing.

Am I? How would a rational and unbiased adult choose from among the hundreds (thousands?) of contemporary religions (never mind extinct or freshly confabulated ones) -- unless they were already predisposed through some cultural or familial influence (or just plain peer pressure?) That's aside from the obvious anthropogenic origins of religions -- obvious to any impartial, informed, and objective observer, that is -- and aside from religion's manifest ontogenic uselessness.

Wow Paulie Mac, you sure showed your true colors right there. "So?" ryggesogn2 just gave a number of historical, correct interpretations of the fact that the Church and its followers were at least among the foundations of Science, and your response is "so". Guess you had nothing better to say to answer him.

Yes, I did show my true colours, I suppose, as a person who enjoys arguments to argue a point.

Adherents to *many* religions have been among the "foundations" of science. It is natural, predictable, and obvious to anyone past the mental age of three that the dominant social, political, and economic forces in any society will have some influence - whether monetarily or philosophically - over the intellectual output of that society.

I ask "so?", because ryg stated a bunch of facts with *no* *conclusion*. "Christions did x, y, and z". So?? What's the conclusion? What's the point of the post? What is he trying to convince anyone of?

Religion is the root of most evil, and the sooner we rid ourselves of it, the better! BANKING ON HEAVEN . cp

Amen to that! Just remember to also rid yourselves of the religion of evolution which professes that all living things descended from one ancestor. The basis for that assertion is religious since it cannot be observed, tested or falsified in any scientific manner whatsoever. One can only go by faith that it's true and try to link up existing physical evidence in support of one's religion.

The interesting thing is that as more & more people believe in the religion of evolution, the biblical prediction in Romans 11 becomes true: God's grace towards the gentiles will come to an end and it will then re-extend to the Jews.

I would bet that the countries in this article don't have the snake oil peddlers mass marketing religion on television like the US does. All these people should be taken off the air. They are liars who seek nothing but money and power. Whether you are a believer or not you should know these people are nothing but salesmen who don't believe in their product. There should be a law against them being on television. Freedom of speech doesn't apply for the same reason you can't yell fire in a theater if there isn't one, they are for profit and nothing else.

Following this article I predict a wave of bicycle riding 18-20 year old's in slacks and a white button down appearing on the streets of "Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the Netherlands".

The interesting thing is that as more & more people believe in the religion of evolution, the biblical prediction in Romans 11 becomes true: God's grace towards the gentiles will come to an end and it will then re-extend to the Jews.

It is not necessary to declare affiliation with a religious denomination in order to be religious.

Indeed, some antisocial nonconformists feel free to cut and paste their own special brand of fantasy, one that makes them the Ursache. All of the benefits with none of the hassles. If they can convince others they may become branch dividians, or Mormons. David koresh enjoyed himself immensely I suppose.

Fine. I was pointing where YOU went muddy. There is ample evidence of religion in the paleolithic. I didn't even bring up the Neanderthal burials which are a very strong indication of them having some sort of spiritual beliefs.

The Iron Age did not come to the New World until Europeans brought it with them. And that includes any possible trading by the Chinese as they had no effect on the New World technology.

And, yes, that's what I want to be treated like.

Which is what I did. You went muddy. Or over the top in my vernacular.

It isn't my fault or the fault of reality and human history that you get upset when some of the Atheists around here go overboard. Try sticking to the facts and don't emotional. I find it works better. The occasional joke doesn't hurt either but that has language problems.

If they can convince others they may become branch dividians, or Mormons. David koresch enjoyed himself immensely I suppose.

You are describing religious affiliation. I was describing religion without religious affiliation.

It is possible to be very religious and not claim affiliation with a particular denomination. Increasingly, people are choosing to say that they are not affiliated with a particular denomination. Those people are not saying that they are not religious.

The interesting thing is that as more & more people believe in the religion of evolution, the biblical prediction in Romans 11 becomes true: God's grace towards the gentiles will come to an end and it will then re-extend to the Jews.

to resume the above discussions:1. all those who do not believe in my religion must believe in another religion.2. all those atheists are hidden believers. 3. those who do not care about religion, one way or another, do not exist. 4. in science one must trust, hence one is a believer. 5. praise the lord.6. there exists no secular humanism. 6'. one is not allowed to embrace moral laws unless in the frame of a religion - better be Christian.7. we are doomed.8. see 5.9. I know something I won't tell.

It is possible to be very SPIRITUAL and not claim affiliation with a particular denomination. Increasingly, people are choosing to say that they are not affiliated with a particular denomination. Those people are not saying that they are not SPIRITUAL.

How can one say they are not associated with a religion yet are religious? That's like me saying that I don't have a M.D. but I'm a practising physician.

Being religious implies they are part of a religion. You can't not be part of a religion and still practise it.

Ironically, it might well be science that "saves" religion. The latest social-scientific research shows that religious people, especially those affiliated with a religious institution: 1- have a longer lifespan; 2- are more content with their lives. Once THAT "news" becomes wider common knowledge, many potential "defectors" could well reconsider their position.

I live in one of those countries and the reason why people say they are not religious is mainly because it's simply old fashioned and obviously silly, but that doesn't mean they don't 'believe' at all. Many still believe in something like a god/spirit and other magical things."The bigger a group, the more members they are able to draw in." This behaviour lies at the very heart of a religion: to simply act like sheep without giving it a second thought.

So that what drives religion at its core is still very much alive here. And I bet for those reasons, that even if religion has gone extinct it will evolve again.

Could not insert "some" or ",too" - lack of space. Sorry to have been difficult.

my friend Zachary ... deeply religious

Did they get him while he was young, naive, and overly trusting? That's typically the case with the "deeply religious".

Did not ask. Must have been the same folks who made him a radical anti-imperialist.

You are grossly generalizing.

Am I?

Yes, by asserting naivete to anyone who doesn't consent to your stance.

That's aside from the obvious anthropogenic origins of religions

Of course. So what?

and aside from religion's manifest ontogenic uselessness.

The "ontogenic" decoration doesn't help to hide your lack of respect for people living beyond your emphatic faculty. You tell them what's useful for them, regardless of their quality of life. You also tell them their assets have to be "useful". Would you take away the cigarette from a dying person?

Ironically, it might well be science that "saves" religion. The latest social-scientific research shows that religious people, especially those affiliated with a religious institution: 1- have a longer lifespan; 2- are more content with their lives. Once THAT "news" becomes wider common knowledge, many potential "defectors" could well reconsider their position.

Source?

And as an athiest myself, you are so utterly wrong, "Prof". I cannot and will not "believe" in any god, unless proven to be true. And I can assure you of this, not believing in a god has made me so much more appriciative of life in general. You cannot truly realize how precious life is when you think you are going to live forever. That plus the fact that I don't have a nagging fear of death has made me more content than I ever would have been if I was religious. In contradiction to your statements, religion is what makes me less content.

The "ontogenic" decoration doesn't help to hide your lack of respect for people living beyond your emphatic faculty. You tell them what's useful for them, regardless of their quality of life. You also tell them their assets have to be "useful". Would you take away the cigarette from a dying person?

By that point in their life it doesn't matter, but what I would do is just get rid of cigarettes in the first place. It's a fitting example to use cigarettes as a comparison to religion as both are toxic and useless.

The latest social-scientific research shows that religious people, especially those affiliated with a religious institution: 1- have a longer lifespan; 2- are more content with their lives.

That has nothing to do with being religious. It's a matter of socialization, either church groups or other forms of group interaction.

It doesn't matter what the group's common interest is - it could be playing Canasta, for all the difference it would make.

What's important is regular interaction with other people, feeling a sense of belonging and having an enjoyable time. This gives you a positive outlook on life which in turn leads to statistically increased longevity.

Of course: It's the terminus technicus law abiding and decently living scientists of the 19th century invented to circumscribe things known today as dildo. To girls, that is - boys are a bit disadvantaged.

Such images were made in Europe in the palaeolithic. They sure as hell weren't made for young boys. They are about as erotic as a cow flop.

Of course: It's the terminus technicus law abiding and decently living scientists of the 19th century invented to circumscribe things known today as dildo.

No. Take look at the links. Pregnant females shapes are not dildoes.

You obviously ain't no grrl.

And you obviously still don't have a clue. Look at the links. Yes, there is one that is clearly a dildo but a fat pregnant female is no dildo and it is a very standard figure of the type.

Sometimes I am dense but not this time. Yes I did manage to read the entire Bored of the Rings the first time without quite accepting the fact that Bilbo Baggins had become Dildo Bugger and they meant it. I had not yet heard what bugger meant or I might not have failed to figure it out.

Then again I read the entire Lord of the Rings thinking Grandlaff to myself instead of Gandalf. I plead artistic license. It sounds better my way even if it doesn't fit his personality.

Of course we ARE certain that there was religion in illiterate iron age peoples

you assumed that I wouldn't mind your "iron age" reference confusion with my "palaeolithic religionism" reference. I wanted to talk about the notion of "palaeolithic religionism" and you open your chapter on "iron age religion". That's muddy, but fortunately not maddening.

I prefer to be strict on definitions of terms like "palaeolithic",

Then you need to learn what they mean. The fertility figures were absolutely stone age which is what palaeolithic means.

It's a fitting example of the clash between those who want to command and restrict the thinking, speaking, and behaving of othersand those who want to cultivate peaceful diversity.

I am all for peaceful diversity but when those peoples thinking has no basis in truth or reason then I am against it. It is all to apparent why religion exists and unfortunate that so many people are taken advantage of in such a way as to exploit fundamental questions of humans (moreso questions arisen from having some sort of intelligence) as purpose/what happens when we die/how did we come to be?

"Once science theories begin to include religion will surveys show a different trend."

That's right! If it weren't for that darn science, everyone would believe Christianity! What a wacko...

The only reason Christianity took off in the first place was when Emperor Constantine decided that Christianity should be the main religion and punished those who didn't convert. Before that, Christianity was just a backwards, despised, and SMALL religion. If it took the threat of death to cause Christianity to become mainstream and something as basic as reason (science) can cause so many to abandon it, one may begin to wonder the truth of it.

"The only reason Christianity took off in the first place was when Emperor Constantine decided that Christianity should be the main religion and punished those who didn't convert."

what?how many humans have been punished for not converting to the norm of their leader?science is next you know

it is the hands of foolishness that twist something powerful to abuse the meek and simple minded

all men are corrupt (me & you)

we are all babies in the grand scheme and our feelings direct us down the wrong path often enough

for you and me its a bad day because of a bad moment and we get put in jail or lose a job or get caught lying about something we would not have previously

for leaders those same bad days mean many dead and decades of fallout for mass amounts of peoplebut the gun needs a handand the truth lies in a persons actions and words and the actions words on all the web pages are high votes for sarcastic wit and who has the best insult

A point to all of us:There is no point in spouting any of this at each other. We have all obviously made up our minds whichever side of this issue we land on. Quoting famous people, famous books etc is not going to change anyones mind here.

Back to the actual article, I went to the source and read the paper. Besides the fact that it uses a lot of math that I really have no idea about, I think I understood some of the basic assumptions that were made. Obviously when doing any calculation you have to make assumptions, but its an unfortunately hot topic. My concerns with the assumptions made are mostly with the data sets used, they are of western countries, all wealthy. The calcs assume only 2 possibilities, no affiliation or affiliation. I don't think they include ties with countries that are not similar to themselves (if country A is like calculated, but across the border is country B which is 100% Muslim then what?)

patent those modified elements because you cannot patent natural elements

show people "studies" that those patented GMO's and pharmaceuticals are required to live a healthy lifeembed your corporate board members into gov law making positions and viversa to keep their money making/legal machine running

suppress the "educated scientific" minded population with these things created by science and ignore the natural things that are even more effective

god bless war medicine and having hospitals around most corners in the USbut standard practice is a joke of drug dealing and our diets are slowly killing us because GMO's are forced into our system by law

Monsanto Corn anyone?

perhaps you need some drug treatment for that brain cancer you got from your cell phone and bluetooth

by the time its proven the profits are already spent and another game is being played

Also it doesn't take into account an overall global tie of world views and situations effecting those of other nations.

I am also unsure if they modeled anything with large effects on people, ie Natural disasters, new scientific discoveries.

Basically the paper assumes if everything stays close to the same, then that is what is probable. It is a group theory calculation, so basically they applied it to Mac vs. PC, and that game can change easily, flipping the results. I bet data shows right now a huge growth in Mac users. But if some company other than Apple creates the next big tech idea then that advantage could slide away. Not that that mirrors the Religion debate, but it is an example of how simple the rules were in their paper.

... those same scientist proclaim their theories as being the absolute truth ...

You didn't actually attend your high school science classes, did you?

Science never proclaims anything to be absolute truth. That's whyeven well accepted theories like gravity or conservation of energy are called "theory" - not because anyone doubts them, but because in principle everything should be falsifiable.

That's the real difference between science and religion, of course. Science is evidence based - if you find contradictory evidence, you must change your theory.

Religion is faith based. You start with a conclusion, look for supporting evidence and if you happen to find contradictory evidence (there's always lots, since most religions are just the fantasies of bronze age, animal sacrificing goat herders), you just talk ignore it or make up even more ridiculous fantasies to explain it away.

fantastic news - welcome to the 21st century - we will need new zealots - but saying goodbye to all the current myths remains a postive sign - I like the new age stuff like Celo Green and his tenets.

Yeah, like bringing science and religion back together where it began.

One supplanted the other. Religion did not begin science. Science is a refinement of philosophy, religion is a refinement of philosophy. One deals with the unknowable, the other with the quantifiable. THey are not akin, alike, or complimentary. They are dynamically opposed based upon our available body of knowledge.

Idan what he is referring to is that many scientists, well probably more the media, do not bother to use the word theory, and we all know that the media will use a shocking headline to grab your attention.

Religion being faith based is the core of the religion. It is not a problem, it is the intension. If God tapped you on the shoulder and said hey Idan, here I am, look at this and did a whole bunch of miracles, like popping 2 supermodels out of nowhere for you, then you would have no problem. But God also wouldn't be giving you the free will that he gave us.

Take it this way, if Stephen Hawkings said I want to make you the top Astorphys in the world before I die, here I wrote this thesis, submit it, and here are 20 speeches for you to give, here is everything for you to get your doctorate. They gave you your doctorate etc, you never learned the material. Are you a doctor of physics? Sure on paper, but really?

Its easy to dismiss something you don't examine be it God or evolution

suppress the "educated scientific" minded population with these things created by science and ignore the natural things that are even more effective

god bless war medicine and having hospitals around most corners in the USbut standard practice is a joke of drug dealing and our diets are slowly killing us because GMO's are forced into our system by law

Monsanto Corn anyone?

See? THIS is poetry. Dyldyo thinks incomplete sentences and no caps imparts a deeper sense of veracity.

There is no point in spouting any of this at each other. We have all obviously made up our minds whichever side of this issue we land on.

Not so! As ye are enslaved, so can ye be liberated. As ye doubt, so can ye be saved from the addiction to Epiphany.

Many people visit science sites because they know in their hearts that religions offer only palliation. We discover how to save ourselves by LOOKING, not by refusing to look. Obviously.

If God tapped you on the shoulder and said hey Idan, here I am, look at this and did a whole bunch of miracles, like popping 2 supermodels out of nowhere for you, then you would have no problem.

As god does not exist, this is something that would not ever happen.

Its easy to dismiss something you don't examine be it God or evolution

We HAVE examined the god of your religions. Your books are full of lies. Your miracles have all been disproven. Further, your religions seem tailor-made to serve heretofore essential sociopolitical functions which makes their artifice seem undeniable.

And religions imperil the world by their insistance on outreproducing all others of their kind, and taking what they have, and killing to get it.

The closer we look at religions the worse they seem, and the more certain we become that they are ALL a danger to our continued survival. Amen(hotep).

Otto, I think it was clear that I was referring to me, you, and the others that are constantly posting back and forth. And yes you are not the only one to post in verse, but you do seem more intelligent than most. Too often people post like that in attempt to hide what they are lacking.

And I would point out that science offers only knowledge to the self. Yes that is great, I love science and totally believe that it is worth while to invest heavily in new discoveries. Since the dawn of time, even before scientific method man has been seeking to understand the world around him, and I include myself in that.

I think Faith offers far more than you give it credit, but it is not so easily grasped as science from a website. It is not a tragedy that people look, but it is a tragedy when people refuse to look not only to, but also beyond the cold surface of science.

And why does logic and reason and scientific inquiry seem 'cold' to you? People watch disney movies and then are offended when they see wild animals in the woods and they dont come over to chat.

The world is what is, not what we may want it to be. This is comforting, it is reassuring, it means we are not subject to the caprice of some vain and vengeful god but that we have the HOPE of real security through understanding and mastery of our environment.

Science is hope and peace. It is courage, it is strength, it is acceptance, it is salvation. It is Maturity. Religions promise us all these things but we know now they are all lies.

Otto, now you are showing the weakness behind your arguments. A hypoth. question should be easily answered. It was not to prove the existence of God, it was merely to help other get a clearer understanding of the essence of the word faith.

Your type of talk about religion is what endangers the world, as a lack of understanding and recognition that I deserve the right to believe whatever I want, and so do you. Your types of comments only prove that you are indeed among the group of individuals, on both sides of the argument, who delight in causing conflict between the sides, rather than peaceful co-existence. One thing you need to realize is that I, and believers like me really couldn't care if you choose not to believe. I care that everyone has an opp. and they will live and die with their decisions.In the end, I and others are firm in our belief. If it ends up that I'm wrong, then I lived life well and I am no worse off.I will die knowing I never hurt anyone with my belief.

"Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. Rom12:19"

the scripture actually says to give way to his wrath for he will avengewhy would he be wrathful?it would be your type of attitude and lack of any love or tolerance

many have chosen wrath and embraced their own selfish desiresI used to be one of them

but how much you have in common with me regarding the great things on this website will not enter your mind voluntarily because it is corrupted and focused on indifferenceprecisely the path those evil religious murders took in the past and today - which many here would speak out against

as for me I must be tolerant and would not ever attack you or support attacking you or any of his other creations

it is an obligation because he is tolerant of me being a foolish - blink of an eye existence

Well, that depends an the nature and the practice of your belief, and the organisational structure you participate in, now, doesn't it?

If you are, say, a fundamentalist christian, campaigning against homosexual rights in a rich western country, are you hurting anyone?

If you support an organisation that proclaims contraception and 'safe sex' a sin, thereby directly contributing to the spread of aids, and untold suffering - are you hurting anyone then?

And they are just two simple examples from a groups who probably think their faith "harmless", not even mentioning any of the more violent and visible manifestations of "harmless faith" that abound in the world today.

the scripture actually says to give way to his wrath for he will avengewhy would he be wrathful?it would be your type of attitude and lack of any love or tolerance

-snore. And yet elsewhere in the bible we find innumerable examples of an impotent god demanding that his subjects do his revenging for him on canaanites, philistines, sodomites, apostates, etc.

Try this one: 1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: ... 3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, ...8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

-What your god is SAYING is that, as these things are all inevitable, there is a PROPER time and place for all of them.

11 He has made everything beautiful in its time.

-EVERYTHING is appropriate at the Proper Time. You be peaceful all the time, and be martyred according to someone elses agenda. Your Destiny.

Very true Paulie, Have I said anywhere that I love the governmental structure of religion and think that the control that these groups try to wield over us is a good thing? The answer to that is no, in a private message to Otto, I pointed out one area where a governing body on a religion would be good, and that is Extremist Islam, where small town Imam's are capable to declare the word of Allah to meet their own desires. Same is true for that dolt in Florida who has his Church preaching hate.

My faith does nothing like that. I do not campaign against homosexuals, I don't think safe sex is bad. I also try to live by what the bible says. Judge not lest ye be judged. I am a firm believer that God doesn't see scales of sin, that to God, Hitlers horrible acts look as bad as me lying. My faith is between me and God, you are not involved, neither is the Pope or the pastor I listen to on Sunday morning.

Otto your error is in looking at Ecclesiastes as a book of fact or as God telling us something. You conveniently skipped vs. 9, 10, and after 119-What does the worker gain from his toil?10-I have seen the burden God has laid on men.12 and onward - I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live.13 That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toilthis is the gift of God.

Meaning - your destiny is up to you. Don't waste time with things that don't matter. This is a Jewish book of Widsom Otto

Your type of talk about religion is what endangers the world, as a lack of understanding and recognition that I deserve the right to believe whatever I want, and so do you.

Uh huh. And so do nazis (except in france). It is what religionists DO because of their beliefs, which is the danger. One gen preaches love of god and the next takes it to mean hatred of those who do not:http://www.youtub...HVEGnYD8

-Religionists may at some point come to realize that, had they been born into another culture, they would be thinking and doing and believing the exact same things as their enemies now are. They may come to believe that, given the same circumatances of endemic strife and conflict caused by overpopulation, that their beliefs would be compelling them to commit atrocities against their neighbors. Because its in the bible. God says its ok, at the PROPER TIME.

I am not somewhere I can watch those video, but I promise i will later.I will not offer any argument that people do bad, misguided things because of their beliefs, its obviously true they do. However your solution to that problem seems to be to yell at people that they are ignorant because of their beliefs.It is not their beliefs that are wrong, it is their actions. That is why the way to correct them is through understanding not confrontation.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this... Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

OF COURSE. The first commandment- accept god or else you are evil and condemned. Religions commandeered simple tribal law and declared that their gods were the only source of it, which is a lie. Religions declare their moral integrity and then hide behind it in order to cause adherents to commit the most horrendous atrocity with gods blessing.

science has no spiritual armor

The 'spiritual' does not exist. Therefore it is no source of anything including morality, conscience, decency, integrity, etc. These things preexisted religion and come from the need for tribal cohesion and the advantages these qualities could provide in conflicts against other tribes over resources.

Otto, your view is as simplistic as those who would say that the Bible is 100% fact. Yours is a obviously a world view in which you, Otto, are the most important person.You offer no explanation of what you think is important, only offer refusal criticism about what others find important. You never offer any real world reasoning behind your statements beside saying that ideas are out dated. You blatantly say that a spiritual side to life is non existent, which cannot be proved or disproved. Moreover you take pieces of arguments that can semi-support your facts, and leave out the next sentence that contradicts your point. We are commanded to do to things, Love God which makes sense from the Christian view that God created and wants a personal relationship with each of us, and Love each other, which you don't seem to have a problem with in concept, but seem to be unwilling to recognize as the core tenant behind a religion, even if it is one that people tend not to follow.

From Matt10:"32 "Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven."

-Translation: love god or suffer the consequences.

"34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

"'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law- 36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

-Translation: NO ONE will be spared from the consequences, which are sword-based.

I SAID that ending religionist-inspired overpopulation and the resultant conflict and oppression is important. I SAID that ending religionist assault on scientific inquiry is important. These are REAL-WORLD problems caused by religion.

You blatantly say that a spiritual side to life is non existent, which cannot be proved or disproved.

Evidence of your spiritual never-neverland or of its effect on the world is notably in absence. Evidence for misuse of the concept for nefarious purposes is in abundance.

Moreover you take pieces of arguments that can semi-support your facts, and leave out the next sentence that contradicts your point.

I include only the salient parts needed to make my point just as you religionists ALWAYS do. My points make a lot more sense than any of yours do. The ecc verses you cited above have nothing to do with what I was trying to say, and do not discount it in any way.

A point to all of us:There is no point in spouting any of this at each other. We have all obviously made up our minds whichever side of this issue we land on. Quoting famous people, famous books etc is not going to change anyones mind here.

You just wanted us to know what we're doing is pointless before you jump right back in? That was thoughtful of you.

You blatantly say that a spiritual side to life is non existent, which cannot be proved or disproved.

You cannot justify belief in something that cannot be demonstrated. If you have zero evidence for it, then yours is not a belief; it's a fantasy.

Secondly, let's approach this scientifically and consider in which manner and at what locus the "spirit" or "soul" contacts, integrates with, or modulates the human brain (which is of course the substrate and substance of the human mind.) If there is such a thing as "soul", then by interacting with the body it becomes itself measurable, analyzable, scientifically detectable, and material. Ever since Descartes tried to find the Spirit in the pineal gland [snicker], science has only succeeded in uncovering and detailing the Physics and Chemistry of cognition -- but never in detecting anything "supernatural" about any of it.

Otto, now you are showing the weakness behind your arguments. A hypoth. question should be easily answered.

If one is to insist that people require a god to have a purpose in life, then they must explain the purpose of their god first. So riddle me this, What is your god's purpose?

If you're a believer, you have to ask yourself, do you believe in God, or do you simply believe that the people who introduced you to religion were telling the truth? If you aren't sure, that's reasonable. If you're sure you believe in God, then perhaps the hypothetical should originate and end within the mind of the adherant.

"So? Do you have any proof that they achieved scientific discoveries because of their Christianity and not because some other factor?"

A 'Closed Mind' would have no place in my Laboratory!

"Here is an example of your logic : Nazi had many breakthrough in many different areas (for example: rocket sceince), so Nazism helped science greatly. If it wasn't for Nazism modern science would simply not exist.

"

As was disclosed in East German Archives: A group of 'Nazi' Scientists risked their lives in choosing NOT to study the Splitting of the Atom . . . they feared for such knowledge in the hands of a madman!Would that Our Scientists have been possessed of such 'Enlightened' benevolence!I maintain that Teller 'Out-Gunned' Oppenheimer, who, upon witnessing what his efforts had wrought, referenced a Quote:"I am become death, Destroyer of Worlds!"

I will now go through every criticism since my last post and offer my answers.

First Otto quoting Matthew 10.While you may think Jesus is saying

"love god or suffer the consequences"

, he is explaining that each individual has to make a choice, this is not a threat. The consequences are explained very plainly.

Verse 34-39 is Jesus explaining to the desciples what they will experience. Matthew 10 is title Jesus sends out the 12 for a reason.

34-39 can be simplified and trunkated to beI didn't come to make your life easy, my coming will make things harder.Relationships will turn sour because some will choose to follow me and others will not.If a broken relationship or others not liking someone is enough to stop them from choosing to follow, then it will be too tough for them. The choice is yours, and that choice will affect your life to its root.

Otto maybe saying you never offer any real world reasoning was hasty. However often your rebuttals to others evidence is merely a flat out denyal such as your comment about the spiritual side of life not existing, or a reinterpretation of a particular bible verse which you understand the words but not what is behind them. Such as above about Matthew, or saying that King Solomon wasn't a powerful man who had all he desired and claiming he was an honest man who lamented his powerlessness.Solomon by the way was a King, he had all the power he could have in his kingdom. What he lamented was the fact that all of his riches, power over others, concubines, and knowledge could not satisfy him.

Evidence of the spiritual world. http://www.physor...h=prayerwhile it is not the best evidence it is there. The issue that science and non-believers have with the spiritual worlds is that, it is an individual experience, and that it can easily be sluffed off as hormones or some other thing. Keep in mind that I don't think that everything that God does he just pops in as magic, rather that God is fully capable of using the natural world to influence us and show us his essence.

Terrible Bohr about this conversation being pointless. Its is, I never said that I won't have the conversation, I am just pointing out we should have the reasonable expectation that nothing we say will influence eachother.

If you have zero evidence for it, then yours is not a belief; it's a fantasy.

A belief is that which one holds to be true, while a fantasy is something that one dreams of or wishes was true. And as I am the one who holds it, it is not up to you if it is a belief or a fantasy. A common problem with the scientific trying to examine that which cannot be measured by instrument and locate something that doesn't require a home. The soul is often used by anyone and everyone to talk about the essence of an individual. I personally doubt there is a peice of matter, an energy even that would equal what people imagine to soul to be. Rather it is probably better understood as an idea. On the otherhand for something of a more scientific fantasy about the soul, maybe our soul is located in a different dimension? Who knows, I don't pretend to. I don't understand, can't measure etc, other dimensions, but that doesn't mean they don't exist either.

Skeptic, thank-you. A solid question.First off I think everyone would realise that this would be tough to explain outright. But I will try to get my theory across in the form of metaphor. Suppose you are yourself but instead of being [your name] here on Earth you are a god, you have always existed, always will exist and you have the power to do anything you want within your existance. You are in a black void, but you are you, so you have imagination etc. Logically you have 2 options, do nothing forever or fill that void. Your universe may not come out like ours but thats not the point. Realistically eventually you would change the void into something else.

Ok, now suppose you make this place, I hypothesise that eventually you are going to fill it with life, as shape is rather boring after a good part of eternity. Maybe you would chose to make life capabe of thinking for themselves, maybe you wouldn't. Basically the idea is that if God exists creation would happen eventually.

As for whether I believe in God or just what I was taught. Considering that for a number of years I was very confident that God didn't exist, and my own research, reading, listening to others opinions and reflection was the reason I came to my conclusion, yes it was my decision and not an accepting of doctrine.

If you're sure you believe in God, then perhaps the hypothetical should originate and end within the mind of the adherant

If what you mean is that my beliefs reside in my head and thats where they should stay, then I would respond that all believers have a duty to share the message, to throw seeds on to the ground. And as the bible says those seeds will land in different types of soil, fertile ground where it will grow, ground covered by weeds that will stop it from growing or a rocky pathways where it will not even sink in.

A belief is that which one holds to be true, while a fantasy is something that one dreams of or wishes was true.

There really is no significant difference. The only reason why you would 'know' a fantasy to be true is because your really, really wish it to be so, therefore you convince yourself that it is true. Whereas a 'soft' fantasy is the type of fiction which isn't quite powerful enough to reach critical mass and to overcome your critical thinking faculties.

A common problem with the scientific trying to examine that which cannot be measured by instrument and locate something that doesn't require a home.

It's not a scientific problem, because it simply isn't a scientific question.

The soul is often used by anyone and everyone to talk about the essence of an individual. I personally doubt there is a peice of matter, an energy even that would equal what people imagine to soul to be.

The soul is simply a synonym for the brain and a lifetime's worth of experiences. Allusions to anything more mystical or spiritual is bunk.

On the otherhand for something of a more scientific fantasy about the soul, maybe our soul is located in a different dimension?

I assure you, that isn't any more scientific.

First off I think everyone would realise that this would be tough to explain outright. But I will try to get my theory across in the form of metaphor.

That's the problem with verbiage and metaphors. They're not precise and fail to define anything scientifically. That's why there's a zillion interpretations of the bible.

I'm not going to address everything you wrote, just this bit about souls: either the soul interacts with the body, or it does not.

If it does not interact in any way with the material world in general or with the body in particular or with the brain specifically, what's the point of postulating it? In this case, it explains nothing, models nothing, and contributes no understanding.

On the other hand, if it does interact with the material world, then instruments should detect some disturbance of state, some energy input, some phase change somewhere that cannot be causally traced to any other material mechanism. In other words, we should be observing violations of energy conservation, and violations of causality. In other words, we should be observing "magic".

But all we're observing, is that the body in general and the brain in particular are just collections of cells, which are just collections of molecules. The brain is a biocomputer. And Physics reigns over it all.

In Australia I am always pissed off when census time come around and there is no place to say I am atheist. The question about religion is 'what religion are you?' Maybe they expect me to say "other" but that would not be true because atheist means I believe all religion is nuts. I can only write a profanity to the above effect. To Australian Census Bureau:- You need to reframe the question so that it can be answered honestly.

A belief is that which one holds to be true, while a fantasy is something that one dreams of or wishes was true.

There really is no significant difference. The only reason why you would 'know' a fantasy to be true is because your really, really wish it to be so, therefore you convince yourself that it is true.

Everybody is free to define "fantasy". While "something one wishes was true" implicitly states "but one knows it to not be true" I'd like to offer a third version: "Fantasy" is a story known to not be true. It might be comforting, it might be nightmarish.

Since the very dawn of our species we have been slaves to superstition and self perpetuating ignorance. To be free now, after only a few centuries of reason and science makes me very grateful indeed; that I was born into this time.

We can turn our minds toward creating a heaven for ourselves in reality.

Pharao Echnaton was the first in human history to introduce the thesis of mono theism. He earned himself the hatred of the complete priest caste at that time because he broke their racket and put them out of business.Proir to this point in time all poeples hat a god for just about every imaginable occasion; including the Isralites. Was it pure coincidence that Moses, who grew up in the courts of Pharao some 150 years after Echnotons death, revived the same thesis but instead of Aton named his god Jehova?All three world religions have been drived from Abrahams legacy or even further back from Echnaton.In the eyes of every fundamentalistic believer it is blasphemy to speak the truth: Not God created man it was man who created god!

Solomon by the way was a King, he had all the power he could have in his kingdom. What he lamented was the fact that all of his riches, power over others, concubines, and knowledge could not satisfy him.

You believe the interpretation of bible allegory that brings you to the conclusion that it can provide you with eternal life. It cannot. If you read ecclesiastes the way it was written, Solomon say 'everything is meaningless', not vanity as in the kjv. He is proud of what he has created and is powerless to prevent it's misuse and decay after his death. The book emphasizes his wisdom and sense of justice, not his greed.

The verses about proper times for inevitable things to occur, is written as a song, sung to Solomon and all Leaders as the Solution to this dilemma, of how to preserve the Order they create for future gens.

A friend of mine from Vienna tells me the data about Austria may be biased because a relatively new .5% tax that Catholics have to pay (money later on delivered to the Catholic Church) allegedly influenced people's decision to declare their religious affiliation. It may be worth checking how much such artificial biases affected data in all the countries in the study. Hearing from knowledgeable people in those countries may be value added to this forum.

Solomon says he tried all the earthly pleasures but they were meaningless to him. His power and wisdom were useless to him in maintaining the Order he created, his kingdom, the only thing he CARED about, once he was gone. But the Solution is HVAC in ecc3; the acceptance of all the inevitable facets of human existence, and the necessity that they be Planned to occur at the Proper Time. In this way they can be beautiful indeed as he says, and Beneficial, and proper. This is the Key to the preservation of Order and the salvation of humanity.

Now, for a description of how Leaders use this Planning to gain enormous power, read the story of Joseph and pharoah and how their acceptance of the Unavoidable led them to own all of Egypt. The bible is about nothing BUT Empire-building, true Salvation.

Ha spellchecker-HVAC is 'given'-The People who wrote the bible cared nothing about what happened to you after you were dead. They cared everything about what you do while you're alive, and They promise you anything, including immortality and wish-granting, to get you to do what they want, in the establishment and maintenance of Order. In the past they needed gods for this purpose; science can now promise these same things, and might just one day provide them (for Leaders, not us). Perhaps one day there will be no one but Leaders left. The victorious Tribe owns the Valley of the Shadow.

All three world religions have been drived from Abrahams legacy or even further back from Echnaton...Not God created man it was man who created god!

Indeed, and Leaders saw that it was good. Good for Shepherding the flocks. The rod to punish, the staff to direct.

Thoth is Enoch, the grandfather of Noah and the One who established a Priesthood, the Chosen Ones, the Keepers of Knowledge throughout the terrible flood of humanity upon the earth...

"Thoth was often considered to be the heart - which, according to the ancient Egyptians, is the seat of intelligence or the mind - and tongue of the sun god Ra, as well as the means by which Ra's will was translated into speech. [shekinah] He was also related to the Logos of Plato [Jesus] and the mind of God. He played many vital and prominent roles in Egyptian mythology, such as MAINTAINING the universe"

Basically the idea is that if God exists creation would happen eventually.

Why? Human beings create because it brings pleasure, pride, reknown, or culminates in a future potential of any of the preceeding.

An all power being would not have these incentives.

This is a fundamental disconnect when one attempts to point out an all powerful creator being or beings. There is no gain for such a being. You've anthropomorphosized the concept of a deity. Using induction, this shows that the concepts of a creator being come from the mind of man, not from existence or evidence there of.

I hope this has clarified my stance. Even a benevolent god as depicted by the various faiths is too local, too overwhelming, and impossibly narrow minded. As a scientist I don't rule out the potential for a creation event. Mathematically there are some in the fields who believe we could create a Universe of some form using ever larger particle colliders. I do rule out the current depictions.

I once agreed with the quote that explains that religion is the opiate of the people, now I have refined my position. Religion is the placebo of the people.

If you understtod the quote in it's original context, you would recognize that you haven't changed positions at all.

Marx didn't think religion was a drug. Most people harp on a single line from that page and insist that Marx had such a stance. The original in context:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

[cont from above] Marx'[s saw religion as a method by which people addressed the hopelessness of life. That the promises of salvation or eternal bliss were a diversion to allow the oppression of people from political bodies (such as government, tax collectors, churches, etc). His statement is clear in context. Religion is the way in which some people make their own lives livable without demanding change in the systems in which we live. It hushes up the people who don't think the life we live is as good as it should be. His next lines are even clearer:

The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and cull the living flower.

Marx was big time into freedom of speech. Cue a marjon post about the evils of socialism.

Sorry Otto, but the more you post the clearer it becomes that your discussions are based upon your disgust with Politics and power mongering more than anything. A disgust that I share by the way. And yes over the centuries people have been controlled, blackmailed and killed by religious institutions. The unfortunate truth is that leaders misuse religion all the time.You seem pretty convinced that your interpretation of a book you despise is correct. Books can be interpreted just like a painting, and even history that happened within the last hundred years and has plenty of documentation is denied by groups because of their hatred, I mean the Holocaust. Its not possible to debate a brick wall, and that probably applies back my way as well. Although I would point out that I am always willing and interested to hear about scientific advancements that help us understand our world and where we came from, but I haven't heard anything yet that offers proof for or against a God.

However where you say that there would be no gain for a deity in creation, I would agree but only if you assume said deity lacks any ability to enjoy his work. If you look at the Bible in its entirety and base the proposed Deity from what is written about it, then it becomes clear that the Deity experiences emotion, which would allow it to take pride in its work and experience a sense of accomplishment.

And you claim that it is to local and narrow minded, if you are meaning improbable, then I would propose that it is no more improbable than life arising from nothing by chance. And maybe even more probably given that deity could choose to create life similar in some ways to itself.

One supplanted the other. Religion did not begin science. Science is a refinement of philosophy, religion is a refinement of philosophy. One deals with the unknowable, the other with the quantifiable. They are not akin, alike, or complimentary. They are dynamically opposed based upon our available body of knowledge.

I am going to have to think about that one for a while. It sounds pretty heavy. However, it gets back to where the universe came from among many other questions.

How free is one to disseminate his ideas if he cannot own the printing press? (Marx advocated no private property.)

By using a public printing press. Now a days, you have the internet.

I know of Marx and his writings. I just felt that clarification of his quote could be useful in light of the whirlwind of earlier posts.

Then why did you not do so and instead obfuscate the subject matter further?

If you look at the Bible in its entirety and base the proposed Deity from what is written about it, then it becomes clear that the Deity experiences emotion, which would allow it to take pride in its work and experience a sense of accomplishment.

What sense of accomplishment or pride can you have when your ability to make change overwhelms the ability to fail?

Most people do not feel good about beating themself at a game of checkers.

Ok Skeptic, I can understand your statement about ability to change things, and how you relate that to playing yourself in a game of chess.

But that is not quite on the mark, as playing a game of chess is not creating. If you instead equate it to an artist working on a painting. That artist can take pride in his work, its not about winning. If the painting doesn't meet his expectations, its not as if he lost a race, he may be a bit disappointed in himself. The other sense where this misses is that, and again the following is not me saying the bible 100% factual but work with that assumption, God gave his creation, especially human kind, free will. According to the bible it was humanity that failed, not Gods creating process.Now understand, that I am not one who thinks that the Genesis account is science or fact, it is fairly obvious that its a story, but I can't imagine trying to explain an smartphone to people from a time that has not mastered even basic electricity.

If you instead equate it to an artist working on a painting. That artist can take pride in his work, its not about winning. If the painting doesn't meet his expectations, its not as if he lost a race, he may be a bit disappointed in himself.

So let me ask you this; Do you still tell the same joke over and over and over? Probably not. There's a reason for that. Once everyone knows the joke, it's no longer funny. We engage in things because they're pleasurable. The sense of accomplishment is a sense of pleasure. If you already know the outcome, there is no pleasure in performing a task. It becomes routine, mundane, ordinary.

The other sense where this misses is that...free will

Let's not start this nonsense again. "You have free will because God commanded it" is a self defeating argument.

Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. Your god sets a poor example for his worshippers. Who would want to worship a god that required worship anyway? What a fop.

Sorry Otto, but the more you post the clearer it becomes that your discussions are based upon your disgust with Politics and power mongering more than anything. A disgust that I share by the way

Sorry KS but you exhibit typical religionist tendency to read what you want into things to suit your own preconceptions. That's not what I said and that's not how I feel. Real Power can be used to accomplish wonderful things. I am glad it is wielded in this world by Those who know what to do with it.

What about according to any other holy book, holy man, holy oral tradition, or holy fraud? You have no basis for any of your speculations. And groundless speculations are absolutely pointless, meaningless, and unproductive. There is literally an infinity of possible god-stories we can confabulate. There is an even larger infinity of possible creation-stories not involving any gods, that we can confabulate. And there is an even larger still infinity of stories that involve perpetual existence (without any distinct creation events) that we can confabulate.

Other than wasting a whole lot of time and energy, what does any of this nonsense accomplish? It's even less than mental masturbation: even worse than armchair philosophy.

Why would a perfect god existing in a perfect state need to create anything anyway? Was he bored? Was he incomplete? If so why would he create an imperfect world and staff it with imperfect people? Is he just a little bit incompetent?

Or was he lonely perhaps? These are all qualities of a much less-than-perfect deity. God did have a wife you know, but early Priests took her away from him, drove her out of the temple, wrote her out of the bible:http://news.disco...318.html

Other than wasting a whole lot of time and energy, what does any of this nonsense accomplish?

His nonsense promises to deliver eternal life in paradise. Mickey only promises euro Disney and some good movies. Which would you choose?

If one rejects all commonly accepted ideas of god(s) but accepts that the universe itself could possibly be an organism in its own right, capable of self awareness at a large scale, one still gets called an atheist, right?

But that would necessitate existence of souls that transcend the body and the material world, since clearly the body is destroyed upon death, and nothing material is eternal due to the laws of thermodynamics.

If he insists that souls exists, then he must show how they intersect with our knowable, detectable, actual reality. If there is no intersection, then these hypothetical things have no connection to us, and we gain nothing from their hypothetical existence. Show me where in the body the soul resides, and how the soul interacts with the body's atoms. Show me violations of physics in the human body. Show me magic. Or stop asserting the "supernatural" and the "afterlife".

If one rejects all commonly accepted ideas of god(s) but accepts that the universe itself could possibly be an organism in its own right, capable of self awareness at a large scale, one still gets called an atheist, right?

No. If the Mother Nature Universe (MNU) was responsible for your creation, then she would be your God.

To take it a little further, if MNU created another universe separate from ours, she would still be your God.

The main question that still remains is where did our and/or the prior universe originate?

If we all agree that something cannot come from nothing, then we must all agree that the universe has always existed, and will always exist. It may undergo state transitions and all sorts of rearrangements, but there can be no absolute "origin", because "origin" requires a context, and that context would still be a kind of universe.

Quantum Mechanics. Given enough time, a universe will burst into existence from nothing.

Science has its limits. Pink Elephant quotes the law of thermodynamics to support his theory that nothing immeasurable is possible. Yet modern scientific theory is making various leaps, such as string theory and theories about multiple dimensions, I think 11 dimensions is one ofter given. Those dimensions are immeasurable, maybe this is what exists, but it is used to give possibilities to what cannot be explained or measured. Yet a spiritual side to our world, which could easily be taken as another dimension is somehow laughable. Also recently there has been a lot of talk about the laws of physics, and the thought by scientists that those laws may hold true for us, but across in the universe, or in other dimensions those law may be different or non existent. The biggest issue with the human mind is that we are unable to accept that what we experience is maybe not everything that exists

Oh sorry that with that quote I meant to point out how science has its limits and rightfully doesn't try to go beyond those limits. However this has caused a problem with scientists, in that they are unwilling to admit that they can't know everything and start applying sentient qualities to what they claim is merely math.How does quantum mechanics propose how the universe decides how to leap forth from nothing? Oh no but everything that is was at that point compacted into the tiniest of points, even smaller than a the core of a black hole, smaller that a single electron held everything in the universe until it figured it was ready to spring forth, without anything to make it do so or even to influence it.

A friend of mine from Vienna tells me the data about Austria may be biased because a relatively new .5% tax that Catholics have to pay (money later on delivered to the Catholic Church) allegedly influenced people's decision to declare their religious affiliation.

In fact, the tax isn't new. According to Wikipedia, the tax (currently at 1.1%) has been in force in Austria since WW2. Curiously, it was instituted by Hitler and was later retained to keep the Church independent of political powers.

That, to me, is incredibly offensive - that a section of the community should be discriminated against based on which fairytale they choose to believe in.

The Church simply needs to die and turn over its vast wealth and resources to really benefit humankind, perhaps by paying for vast renewable energy projects that would make the eventual transition far easier and less expensive.

science has its limits and rightfully doesn't try to go beyond those limits.

Yes, there a limits to the type of questions that science can address.

However this has caused a problem with scientists, in that they are unwilling to admit that they can't know everything

A scientist would never think that. That's a false premise.

How does quantum mechanics propose how the universe decides how to leap forth from nothing?

No one knows the exact details of that event, and no scientist would claim otherwise. That doesn't mean they should stop theorizing.

Oh no but everything that is was at that point compacted into the tiniest of points, even smaller than a the core of a black hole, smaller that a single electron held everything in the universe until it figured it was ready to spring forth, without anything to make it do so or even to influence it.

You're needlessly anthropomorphizing. Like I said, the details are unknown, but theoretical investigation proceeds.

ST and theories about multiple dimensions, I think 11 dimensions is one ofter given. Those dims are immeasurable, maybe this is what exists, but it is used to give possibilities to what cannot be explained or measured. Yet a spiritual side to our world, which could easily be taken as another dimension is somehow laughable

Yes, it's laughable because it's based on nothing but wishful thinking. ST has a basis in physical reality. It was 'discovered' when in the 70s scientists were trying to explain the strong nuclear force. It wasn't quite right for that, but the problem it had in that context turned out to be ideal for a 'unified theory' as it could deal with the graviton for the first time.

Since then, the theory has grown while undergoing several revolutions. While it's true that a lot of it cannot be directly tested now, there are several indirect opportunities coming up shortly at the LHC.

So there is definitely a basis for ST with tests coming up, unlike spirituality.

Also recently there has been a lot of talk about the laws of physics, and the thought by scientists that those laws may hold true for us, but across in the universe, or in other dimensions those law may be different or non existent.

Right, so? Theoretical physics is a fertile field.

The biggest issue with the human mind is that we are unable to accept that what we experience is maybe not everything that exists

LOL, that's hardly an issue for theoretical physicists. But they are still SCIENTISTS, not mystics.

How does quantum mechanics propose how the universe decides how to leap forth from nothing?

Actually it's M theory, am I right? Which gave Hawking the reason to state that if god exists, he would be superfluous, because the universe can and will pop out of absolutely nothing. And why would god create a universe in which he is superfluous? He would not.

Yes, there a limits to the type of questions that science can address.

If you had the metaphysical in mind, it doesn't exist. Like PE said above, the soul, the afterlife, etc don't exist. There is no evidence at all for any of them and a great deal of evidence to believe they were concocted to manipulate people.

The Big Bang is just an event, past which we haven't been able to see (so far), and may never be able to see. However, that cannot imply that it came from nothing. All events occur in some context, and are driven by some mechanism.

@Skeptic_Heretic,

Quantum Mechanics. Given enough time, a universe will burst into existence from nothing.

Quantum Mechanics is not "nothing". It still requires a set of laws to be in action. It still requires a context of spacetime to operate within. You can't even use the phrase "given enough time" in a context of nothingness. If time exists, then something already exists: time is not nothing.

@Kingsix,

Yet a spiritual side to our world, which could easily be taken as another dimension is somehow laughable.

It is laughable because you can't show any detectable effect of it. It was postulated to explain human consciousness, before people knew anything about neuroscience. It's a failed, outdated, and redundant hypothesis.

I suspect those would be the ones that fall into the category that science cannot address.

Name one.

The existence of god, would be one.

Many scientists believe that the compulsion to believe in the unreal originates in specific areas of the brain. The potential exists to prove that the illusion of god or fairies or luck or whatever are due to the (defective?) structure of the brains of certain people, and is therefore unreal. The phenomenon can therefore be explained scientifically without having to postulate a metaphysical realm.

Further, the social sciences can tell us all the many ways the concept has been exploited throughout the ages, lending a further understanding of the reasons it persists.

"Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was inspired by both his professors at university and his colleagues at the monastery to study variation in plants, and he conducted his study in the monastery's two hectare[7] experimental garden, which was originally planted by the abbot Napp in 1830."Imagine, a monk the father of modern genetics. What was the religion of this monk? Catholic ChristianHere is a link to monastery: http://www.opatbr...t_en.htm

There is a difference between a scientist who is a Christian, making a scientific breakthrough and Christianity being the driving force in the scientific revolution. These people where scientists who happened to be Christian. Christianity in no way gave them special abilities to discover the secrets of the universe.

Christianity in no way gave them special abilities to discover the secrets of the universe.

Well, true on one hand. On the other hand, it did give them the idle time required to devote themselves to such activities. When a monastery provides for your needs without you having to toil all day for a scrap of food, it helps. When a monastery teaches you how to read and write, that also helps.

So, did Christianity contribute positively to the emergence of modern science? As a religion, it obviously did not. But as an organized social institution, it probably did -- though it's undeniable that for many centuries prior, it also did more harm than good.

Actually it's M theory, am I right? Which gave Hawking the reason to state that if god exists, he would be superfluous, because the universe can and will pop out of absolutely nothing. And why would god create a universe in which he is superfluous? He would not.

Stephen Hawking has been wrong about several things and this is one of them.

Actually it's M theory, am I right? Which gave Hawking the reason to state that if god exists, he would be superfluous, because the universe can and will pop out of absolutely nothing. And why would god create a universe in which he is superfluous? He would not.

Stephen Hawking has been wrong about several things and this is one of them.

I suspect those would be the ones that fall into the category that science cannot address.

Name one.

The existence of god, would be one.

Many scientists believe that the compulsion to believe in the unreal originates in specific areas of the brain. The potential exists to prove that the illusion of god or fairies or luck or whatever are due to the (defective?) structure of the brains of certain people, and is therefore unreal. The phenomenon can therefore be explained scientifically without having to postulate a metaphysical realm.

Further, the social sciences can tell us all the many ways the concept has been exploited throughout the ages, lending a further understanding of the reasons it persists.

Sorry, was there a rebuttal in there somewhere to my previous statement that science cannot answer some questions? You seem to to talking about psychology, which certainly is open to scientific inquiry.

"Lewis intended Narnia as Christian allegory,...""According to Mr. Maudlin, an executive editor at HarperOne, the Narnia books are still huge backlist sellers that dominate everything else his company publishes by Lewis. But Mere Christianity still sells about 150,000 copies a year, as does The Screwtape Letters (1942), a satirical correspondence from an uncle demon to his nephew demon about how to lead a human astray.

I would say in the last 10 years, C. S. Lewis has sold more books than any other 10-year span since he started publishing, Mr. Maudlin said. Hes not only not declining, he is in his sweet spot. "http://www.nytime...efs.htmlOn the verge of extinction?

And that's before we consider the numerous contradictions b/w Christian dogma and reality. For instance, Christians believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, demons, angels, and afterlife. They assume (because the Bible says so) that there's a Firmament, and that the Earth is the center of the universe. They assume that the world's languages were a result of a mythical Babel. They believe in witchcraft. They believe in prophecy. They believe in miracles and divine (as well as demonic) intervention. They engage in incessant magical thinking. They espouse a fairy-tale cosmogony that's utterly in conflict with natural history. They have a penchant for persecuting heretics and critics.

And so on, and so forth. Superstition and magical thinking are fundamental obstacles to scientific inquiry, critical thought, and objectivity.

Give this comment a 5 if you ever attended church for purely social reasons.

Christians in the US always throw out this ridiculous number that 9/10 Americans are Christians, yet I can can ask around work and find that 9/10 doesn't hold up in the least.

I think "Christian" is the knee-jerk answer for most Americans. If you haven't even thought about Jesus, God, or a church for 20 years and somebody asks you "What religion are you?", most people say "Christian" by habit. It's what they were raised on and when you don't think about it for years and then are surprised by the question, you answer with what you left off with.

That would have been me my first year of college. I would have said "Christian?" (notice the question mark in my answer). I would have immediately felt strange saying it because I didn't really believe in it or think about it, but that's what my family was growing up. Well, they pretended to be because it was the "right" way to raise a family.

Quantum Mechanics. Given enough time, a universe will burst into existence from nothing.

Quantum Mechanics is not "nothing". It still requires a set of laws to be in action. It still requires a context of spacetime to operate within. You can't even use the phrase "given enough time" in a context of nothingness. If time exists, then something already exists: time is not nothing.

I know this, but look at our audience. Can't over complicate things off the jump, Mr Swenson will need his depends changed.

Sorry, was there a rebuttal in there somewhere to my previous statement that science cannot answer some questions? You seem to to talking about psychology, which certainly is open to scientific inquiry.

Science can address the delusion of god. Simple enough for you?

If it originates in the mind then it's 'existence' can be explained. Scientists know there is no mickey mouse and aren't compelled to prove it although they could. Are you saying science needs to waste time looking for boogy monsters and leprechauns? Although these delusions too can be wholly explained scientifically.

The god delusion may even be treatable which would be further proof that it is not real.

No. Paleolithic is the period of ANY part of the world before it started using metals. I say that because the dating for the term is very Eurocentric. The New World was way behind Eurasia in technology.

I'm sure we don't agree on "religion".

I am not so sure as right now you are using the word very loosely. I am Agnostic and you have never said you were had any particular beliefs either. But you get upset every time someone gets carried away in a rant against religion.

Thus, no, there was definitely no religion in palaeolithic times.

That is such horseshit. For one I pointed out the physical evidence and you made that ridiculous remark about dildos to evade the point. For another they didn't write anything which is why I brought up illiterate iron age cultures that we DO have written knowledge about.

I think you may have that backwards. Religion was essential to the spread of Order and civilization. Death and destruction were endemic and would have occurred anyway. Religions channeled these inevitable occurrences and derived Benefit from them. Today the death and destruction caused by religions incessant overpopulation are avoidable. Today religion threatens the world with destruction.

The god delusion may even be treatable which would be further proof that it is not real.

Everyone's reality is a heuristic.Sagen demonstrated the limits of science in Contact.The theme of the Bible is faith. Jodie Foster's astronomer character only had faith in science. After she encountered an alien she could not prove with science, she understood what faith really means.'Reality' has much room for growth.

Sagen demonstrated the limits of science in Contact.The theme of the Bible is faith. Jodie Foster's astronomer character only had faith in science. After she encountered an alien she could not prove with science, she understood what faith really means.'Reality' has much room for growth.

Except there was evidence. Did you watch the movie? Remember the conclusion where she had 8 hours of tape rather than 8 seconds? Faith is belief in spite of evidence. It is denial of reality.

They could just as easily have been palaeolithic like in New Guinea. Plus there is ample evidence in wall paintings that the Australians have had the same beliefs for 10s of thousands of years. Burial is evidence that a religious belief is likely.

No mud, please

No just reality.

Spiritualism is a proper superset (and precursor) of religion.

Spiritualism is PART of religion. Not merely a precursor and the evidence supports me and not you.

Thus, it does not imply religionism.

Handwaving and nothing but.

is nothing I wanted to talk about; due to lack of disagreement.

I am not limited in my efforts to get my point across by your desires. Your lack of agreement is based on a desire to not accept actual evidence. This can be seen in that ludicrous dildo comment.

Unfortunately, as there is not even a pointer to any mud of mine, I can't convert to your belief.

Muddy thinking is about all you are doing with me. Evasion of evidence with none of your own.

Sagen demonstrated the limits of science in Contact.The theme of the Bible is faith. Jodie Foster's astronomer character only had faith in science. After she encountered an alien she could not prove with science, she understood what faith really means.'Reality' has much room for growth.

Except there was evidence. Did you watch the movie? Remember the conclusion where she had 8 hours of tape rather than 8 seconds? Faith is belief in spite of evidence. It is denial of reality.

No one believed her story.There are millions of people who have personal evidence of God. That's why they believe. Actor Clint Walker related a story of a cousin being guided through an Alaskan mountain pass in a bush plane by a voice giving him compass headings.

I've been working as a paramedic on an ambulance. Reality is stranger than fiction.

Interesting but not relevant. And I read some exceedingly strange fiction. Fat chick fans are not a new concept but that isn't what those figures are.

You are arguing from ignorance and claiming that because YOU don't have a clue that there is any sign of religion in the paleolithic then there was no such thing.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence AND we DO have evidence. Wall paintings, figurines and burials. More than enough to make likely that there was religion involved. Way more than enough to make your claim of there being no such thing complete nonsense.

What's simple is your parsing of what I stated. I wasn't speaking to the psychology of people's perceptions but to the existential question a god.

If it originates in the mind then it's 'existence' can be explained.

And how are you to address whether something exists purely in the mind? Note, I'm not talking about any god documented in religious texts, which can usually be proved not to exist, but the existence of a 'general' creator of the universe. Science cannot address such a question because it is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific, as I have already stated. Not my fault that your rabid anti-theist bias prevents you from comprehending this.

And how are you to address whether something exists purely in the mind?

If it existed at all, I'd believe in your god, just like you.

Science cannot address such a question because it is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific

Indirectly it can be falsified as it would violate every known law of physics we have.

I don't quite understand why people keep using unfalsifiability as some sort of "proof" god can exist. Being unfaslsifiable does not in any way make it more likely to exist. And in this case, there is so much indirect evidence against it that it is extremely improbably to be true.

People continually underestimate the power of their own minds and just what it can make them believe. Look at some paranoid schizophrenics, they believe whatever their brain tells them. Why would any of us be different if we don't question what it is telling us?

Do any of them have videotape? That's the difference. If you have evidence of a voice in your head, that's psychosis, not God.

That's why they believe.

Yes, and as you're someone who's fond of tossing out Popper's methodology when you think it suits you, you should understand that personal experience, within your head is not falsifiable, and therefore, not evidence.

Actor Clint Walker related a story of a cousin being guided through an Alaskan mountain pass in a bush plane by a voice giving him compass headings.

Not only is it "a voice in his head" but it's also hearsay. Super strong evidence there dummy. A voice in a pilot's head told him what direction to fly in.

Couldn't have possibly been the ability of the pilot coupled with the rather large amount of instrumentation designed to do such a task.... nope, your default answer is Jesus GPS.

Extinction is weird. To find a point of extinction, the base (evidence) on which it was built is necessary. Extinction without reference to reality is as certain as math is to reality. And math is as close to belief in faith as anyone can expect of hope.

Sagen demonstrated the limits of science in Contact.The theme of the Bible is faith. Jodie Foster's astronomer character only had faith in science. After she encountered an alien she could not prove with science, she understood what faith really means.'Reality' has much room for growth.

Except there was evidence. Did you watch the movie? Remember the conclusion where she had 8 hours of tape rather than 8 seconds? Faith is belief in spite of evidence. It is denial of reality.

Indeed there was and in the real world that evidence would have been at the center of the story.

Weve learned a great deal since sagan passed and gained a great deal of confidence. There is nothing which exists that science cannot address or dismiss.

Everyone's reality is a heuristic.

I am ignoring your pet word. Many peoples realities are delusional. Many peoples delusions make them feel justified in doing destructive and irresponsible things. Many delusions threaten the world.

Nuts. Thats not right. If it doesnt exist we can dismiss it. Put a big label on it 'For entertainment purposes only.' Naw, that wont work. I think the only solution to religion is to find the neurological defects which cause it, understand what causes THEM (malnutrition, genes, toxins, exposure to irrationality from an early age etc) and prevent the damage from occurring in the first place. Im sure we will also eliminate (other) crime from society at the same time, an ancillary benefit.

In the meantime, like bill maher says, we can stand up to it, resist it, point out the damage it does, and encourage others to do the same.

Bigotry seems an innate tribalist response and yet we have suppressed that tendency culturally, with the hope of one day eliminating the compulsion. Worship of the unreal should be addressed in the same manner.

Just because you cannot see something, measure it in the lab or describe its composition doesn't mean it is not real.

True. Just because you feel it, believe it, or have faith in it doesn't make it real either.

Memes are real things. So are delusions. As such they can be addressed scientifically. Both can be dangerous and can have ruinous effects on society. This can also be quantified. And rectified.

What's simple is your parsing of what I stated. I wasn't speaking to the psychology of people's perceptions but to the existential question a god.

And your use of philo terms doesnt make you any less wrong. If it only exists in damaged minds and there is no evidence to support it otherwise, science can dismiss it with the caveat that theyll reopen the file when some evidence turns up. Philos and other delusionists can complain all they want which only further emphasizes their irrelevance in todays world. The meta is all they got left, eh? All smoke and mirrors.

Science cannot address such a question because it is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific, as I have already stated. Not my fault that your rabid anti-theist bias prevents you from comprehending this.

Sounds to me like youre assuming something exists because it is absolutely unproveable. Science would tend to conclude it doesnt. Political scientists might tend to suspect it is a politically-inspired fabrication, because thats where its most substantial effects can be discerned.

Somebody with an agenda cant declare that something is real just because it cant be demonstrated that its not. Science doesnt need to find some big hole in space where a god is supposed to be, to dismiss the fantasy as pathology and subterfuge.

Perhaps you might want to consider giving up your rabid pro-philo-think for something a little less non-relevant:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

"...reopen the file..."Nice. Comfy too. All is on file.God forbid, evidence is misfiled. Not under what we sought or looked for.

lol

People have been looking for thousands of years, have staked their lives and reputations on it, and have found NOTHING. Millionaire religionists finance archeology digs in the middle east and find NOTHING.

Meanwhile science uncovers increasing evidence that the god creature originates in damaged brains. This seems a more worthwhile direction to pursue dont you think?

Any scientist would love to document a bonafide miracle. They do uncover new and miraculous phenomena every day which gives them great pleasure, as it is why they do what they do. Religion never uncovers or clarifies anything, indeed it threatens the scientific process of investigating and understanding.

Religionists already know how things work. They dont need godless eggheads shaking their faith or confusing the issue. Or proving their god a liar.

That also applies to people who believe something can come from nothing.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking wrote.http://www.univer...created/

-Hawking is the type of person who spends a great deal of time investigating the merits of theories and the work that people do to compose them, before accepting them.

You seem to be the type of person who would dismiss theories composed and endorsed by people such as stephen, with no work and no backround with which to understand them and with no respect for those who can, merely because -what- you find them disagreeable or discomforting or icky or satanic or somesuch?

14 ..."'You will be ever hearing but never understanding...15 For this people's heart has become calloused;..." matt13

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking wrote.

Stephen Hawking's theory conflicts with mine. Who is that Stephen Hawking's guy? Oh, you mean the one who has the theories about black holes!

Random bible 'wisdom'"24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away." matt13

-So god is like the careless farmer who sleeps while his fields are being desecrated? God is not ever-vigilant? Why doesnt god own a dog?? Or is the pope the dog of god???

And why does the bible contain imperfect parables with big logic holes in them?

when someone says there are billions of stars out there they are easily believed, but when they say the paint is wet, they will always be challenged. when people have the chance to disprove someone, either being smarter, or stronger, they will do it. when uneducated people see scientists with all of these equations and claims of the origin of the universe, they say "well that seems about right", but when such uncomplicated claims ,like that of the holy scriptures, are seen by people, they will forever challenge it.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking wrote.

So then Hawking's definition of "universe" doesn't conform with the dictionary definition of Universe. The dictionary says the Universe is everything that exists. That would include any "law such as gravity". If the law must exist to bring forth a "universe", then the Universe embodying that law already exists prior to emergence of "universe".

And oh by the way, for the religious: any deity/deities pre-existing a "universe" in themselves would by definition be part of or idempotent with a pre-existing Universe. By postulating any sort of "god", all you are doing is claiming that the Universe has a mind. Which is actually a pretty ridiculous claim, even though it is indeed pitifully anthropomorphic in a rather touchingly and childishly sad kind of way.

@PinkElephantI agree about what you are saying about the universe but if you just said from the universe (landscape) a "bubble" or "pocket" can form , that would be exceptable, would it not? IE., the multiverse. But then where did the whole thing come from?

The answer will be "We don't know, but we do know it wasn't created by God."

No, actually the answer would be "same place Ghost came from."

Perhaps I'm not making myself quite clear enough. The "from" that anything "comes from", is by definition a part or whole of the pre-existing Universe that anything comes from. The notion of "coming from" implies pre-existence of both time and place, as well as some mechanism of conveyance.

The only construct that is logically and conceptually consistent, is a Universe that has always existed, and will always exist. It may have "bubbles" and "pockets" in it, it may have "branes" and hidden dimensions in it, it can host all sorts of complex and simple processes. But it's still a singular totality of everything that exists.

You originally asked for one example, I gave you one, then you went off on an irrelevant tangent. When I called you on it you went into defensive, belligerent mode and further accused me of being delusional, irrelevant and a meta philo?! This neatly reinforces my observation of you.

Sounds to me like youre assuming something exists because it is absolutely unproveable.

Again, you have not grasped what I've been saying. The rest of your tirade follows on from this false premise that only a rookie would make. You're a worthless individual to engage in further discourse - I should have know better, given your history on this board.

So then Hawking's definition of "universe" doesn't conform with the dictionary definition of Universe. The dictionary says the Universe is everything that exists. That would include any "law such as gravity".

Dictionaries can be and are updated all the time. Websters just added OMG. That is also the beauty of science, it's ability to evolve in light of new evidence.

This is unlike religion which may try to be trendy and hip sometimes but their books never change. At least philos can change with the seasons like Dior. Or when the old guard dies off.

The only construct that is logically and conceptually consistent, is a Universe that has always existed, and will always exist.

I have come to a similar conclusion over the years. Nevertheless, it's still impossible to get one's head around something always existing, rather than having a beginning and an end. How can something always have existed? Why is there 'something' rather than nothing? I'm getting a headache...

Maybe this is a minor point but- how can you yourself draw conclusions about the nature of the universe? Scientists investigating these things will create models after much work and discussion:http://en.wikiped...e_theory

I assume you're not a scientist? We know here that religionists will draw conclusions of this sort. We know philos will also tend to do the same using only the power of their minds and many sophisticated words. But neither has the hope of being right because neither applies science to reach their conclusions.

if our dear leaders allow our societies to "progress" one way or another in a manner that makes life extremely hard/expensive/unbearable, there will be religious leaders that will step up to the plate and when the people have no other hope for salvation they will believe and religion will trump science and perhaps in a harsh manner that might take us back a thousand years. Take note, dear leaders!

how can you yourself draw conclusions about the nature of the universe?

Anyone can have informed opinions. Ask any cosmologist what they think about the nature of the universe and they'll give you an OPINION. It's not about what is proved, but what their gut tells them, having spent a lifetime researching the field and interacting with colleagues and reading a wide cross-section of the literature. The very models they're trying to develop and test likely fit in with these opinions.

By definition, these are unsubstantiated personal guesses. As such, they would never claim that they are true or that they couldn't be totally wrong. Similarly, I make no such claims, as I'm sure PE similarly does not.

We know here that religionists will draw conclusions of this sort. We know philos will also tend to do the same using only the power of their minds and many sophisticated words. But neither has the hope of being right because neither applies science to reach their conclusions.

In your opinion it's perfectly acceptable in a modern society for adults to act like infantile little children? Not that they don't have the right to do and be whatever they wish. Still, the rest of us don't have to RESPECT such foolishness.

In your opinion it's perfectly acceptable in a modern society for adults to act like infantile little children? Not that they don't have the right to do and be whatever they wish. Still, the rest of us don't have to RESPECT such foolishness.

Well, as it's rather childish to disrespect people simply because their feelings are different than your own, shall I suppose you lack self-respect, as well?

We aren't talking about "feelings". We are talking about things like irrationality, narrow-mindedness, and belief in magic -- among various other behaviors of dubious merit.

So, if you think it's OK for people to display such foolishness in public, never mind actually advocating for it, then I hope you feel it's OK for me to laugh in their faces. Freedom of speech cuts both ways.

Religion cant go extinct as long as there are people on the planet. A very simple and generic definition of religion is the practicing of that which is held to be important. Science is a religion of some; and there is some indication that Quantum Physics is coming close to supporting some ancient claims made by several large formal religions.

I new of one Saint who claimed everyone on earth has the same religion; there is only one -the desire to be free from or diminish pain.

Oh yeah! The study of anything is the science part. Doing what has been acquired through studying is an art.

We aren't talking about "feelings". We are talking about things like irrationality, narrow-mindedness, and belief in magic -- among various other behaviors of dubious merit.

Ri-i-ight... and feelings are never irrational. Give me a break.

It IS about feelings. That you don't appreciate them, does not make them any less legitimate.

So, if you think it's OK for people to display such foolishness in public, never mind actually advocating for it, then I hope you feel it's OK for me to laugh in their faces. Freedom of speech cuts both ways.

No doubt - it certainly is your right to hate. It's shameful and distasteful, but it's your right.

I just spent a good hr reading all this. I now understand why there's so much hate from the atheist. They are educated, but not well educated. They do not know better. They are ever seeking knowledge but never finding the truth there of.

I just spent a good hr reading all this. I now understand why there's so much hate from the atheist. They are educated, but not well educated. They do not know better. They are ever seeking knowledge but never finding the truth there of.

Just as there are many types of theists, there are many types of non-theist, and many types of atheist.

The major difference is that the latter two groups are less of a cohesive group than the former. Generalizing any of the three isn't always in your best interests.

I just spent a good hr reading all this. I now understand why there's so much hate from the atheist. They are educated, but not well educated. They do not know better. They are ever seeking knowledge but never finding the truth there of.

The truth may require a leap of faith. Atheist scientists eschew faith. What's more important to the atheist, keeping faith with the scientific process or using any process to understand the universe?

All Muslims or just some Muslims - or maybe a few Muslims. There again a few of any demographic will happily behead anyone. One religious I know of is invoked not to 'allow a witch to live' then plays fast and loose with the definition of witch.

Is my fellow workmate, 'Mo', liable to decapitate me in some off moment? He seems a very gentle man.

Regardless of what you believe personally, I think it's fair to say religion had a very distinct role to play in society and maybe it's time to understand the ramifications of a largely religionless society. What does it mean for morality... mental health, etc.

How would you know anything about anything outside this universe and/or prior to its creation?

Do the math. Math doesn't need to the universe to exist. Many Universes may be mathematically viable. This one is as far as we can tell. It looks to be ALMOST literally something from nothing. The 'almost' is because math doesn't need to the Universe but it makes it possible.

The key for the Universe to exist out of no matter or energy is that the total energy of the Universe is STILL zero. Matter and positive energy produce the negative energy that is gravity. The negative energy of gravity seems to exactly balance the positive energy of the universe thus making the total energy zero. Something from nothing. It can exist mathematically so why shouldn't it exist?

Sure it does. Even if it does no more than comfort, it has a place. Or, would you take all the Teddy Bears away from all the children, too?

Oh, it does a lot more than comfort doesn't it? It divides people and sets them against one another. It convinces them to try to outreproduce their opponents. It encourages irresponsibility, bigotry, ignorance, violence.

Teddy bears don't speak to kids and promise them they will live forever if they worship them, and stay away from kids who prefer dolls or G I Joes, or require them to go commit jihad in the playground. There are much safer, more natural, less pathological sources of comfort, than superstition.

Why is there 'something' rather than nothing? I'm getting a headache...

Because the 'something' can exist. So why shouldn't it?

To put it another way

Before there was a tangible universe there was Logic-Mathematics which are valid even without a universe. Many kinds of universes must be valid mathematically. Whether they be brane, string, twistor or hordes of not yet imagined systems. Since they are possible there is no reason they should not BE.

The only construct that is logically and conceptually consistent, is a Universe that has always existed, and will always exist.

I think a better term is a meta-verse. Many people, not just Hawkings, think of the The Universe as the one with the laws that we live in and not the other, hypothetical universes.

We need new words for new ideas and trying to force fit older words to do a new job just confuses things. Your way we need a new word for OUR Universe. Making a new word for a multiplicity of universes is a better way to go. In English anyway. In German they just keep adding on to make words that are, well, just plain silly.

Newton was a lot of things. Much of what he did was to appease the academic, political, and religious status quo which enabled him to explore more controversial issues. Many philos wrote pure metaphysical nonsense while at the same time making worthwile contributions to the sciences.

I submit that they were scientists when doing science and not philos. Philosophy is inextricably bound to the unreal and the nonexistent and that will be the death of it. As a serious academic pursuit that is, not as a pseudoreligion or pseudo-intellectual fashion statement.

Math needs an intelligence to exist."Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.""We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."Max Planck"arithmetic was an heuristic! Arithmetic might only be an heuristic, but clearly it was a good and very necessary one. All the while I could not help wondering"If arithmetic is in doubt, what is not?"http://www.me.ute...ory.html

Baloney. Many scientists including hawking and Feynman have declared it dead, irrelevant, pointless, deceptive. Most just ignore it as it has absolutely no bearing on what they do or how they think. Philos are usually busy scrambling to update previous announcements and utterances in light of new science. They are apologists. They discover nothing, reveal nothing. They annoy scientists and waste their time. Did I forget anything? Oh yes they're hopelessly pretentious.

According to philosophers eager to maintain their legitimacy and oak-paneled offices. They also lay claim to law and politics.

Feynman et al declare the link between the two to be dead.

Is the eggshell a part of the chicken that hatched from it? No. Does the chicken still want to keep it around, maybe as a memento or to remind it of where it came from, or to enlighten young chickens about the deeper meaning of life? No. Whats the point? It smells bad and clutters up the roost. I think birds tend to devour eggshell to reclaim the calcium? That sounds like a solution.

You would be surprised that even in Math you find philosophy.In simple basic things like x^y.

For science:

1. Observation2. Philosophy3. Math

I think you have it backwards? As it was realized that math could describe the world much better than words, philos began devising clever word calculations to keep themselves relevant. But as words are fuzzy squishy things unlike numbers, word calculating fails.

Philosophy would also lay claim to common sense and innate logic. You have absorbed way too much of their PR. We can observe in the discipline how recalcitrant old and obsolete cultures can be, especially when they are based on faith and belief in the unreal.

According to philosophers eager to maintain their legitimacy and oak-paneled offices. They also lay claim to law and politics.

Well you can apply philosophy to any practice like law or politics, the former being the father of the latter in organized form. I don't think philosophy is the father school of either of the former, however, the interrogation of nature to discover truth is directly from philosophy.

Math is words. Math itself is nothing more than the logic of statements about quantity. The concept of zero, without which modern mathematics is not possible, is a wholly philosophical concept. No amount of observation or empirical induction can ever suggest an absence of quantity.

Otto dislikes philosophy because he fails to understand science. Indeed, he treats science, together with his pet conspiracy theory, in precisely the way religionists accuse scientists of regarding science, as itself an object of faith, and as a worldview in direct opposition to any view it does not include.

Otto fails to realize that the method of science cannot justify itself as the sole route to knowledge. The claim "Only those statements that can be empirically investigated can be known to be true or false" cannot itself be empirically investigated.

The claim "Only those statements that can be empirically investigated can be known to be true or false" cannot itself be empirically investigated.

Who cares? Only philos and other pseudo-religionists, is who. The implication is that there is something relevant or worthwile or valuable to be discussed, but that only philos and religionists are capable of discussing it. This is deception.

There is nothing of value in the no-place called the metaphysical. Centuries of intra-cranial thought research and philobabble interaction have produced no evidence and nothing which explains anything. Of course they will tell you otherwise with indignant sophistication. Another fantasy, another delusion.

Otto fails to realize that the method of science cannot justify itself as the sole route to knowledge.

Yes it can, and has, and always will. Saying it can't with esoteric wordiness and an attitude does not make it so.

ryggesogn2, James Hannam's thesis that science was launched by the Christian Middle Ages (at least in Western culture), is not revelatory. People in the Middle Ages were Christian. However, it does suggest an evolution of thinking, which has been a long time in progress, just as monotheism suggests an evolution in thinking from what preceded it. We no longer live in the Middle Ages. Let our thinking continue to evolve. Those who are unable or unwilling to let go of the thought processes of the Middle Ages will object to my use of the words "evolution" and "evolve," however. As for the Muslims, where would the "genesis of science" in the Middle Ages be without their contribution?

As a Christian and a Scientist I Have to say, I totally disagree. Even God and Heaven didn't exist it, it doesn't matter , what matters the belief it does. The belief in the hear-after has such important meaning in society and civilization that with out it I can only imagine a collapse of both. Why is say this is society is based on retribution for wrong doings. Every wrong that is done to an individual that can't be repaid has always been pointed to an eventual balancing out either here or in Heaven/Hell. If those no longer exist, that implies no punishment or retribution for anything an individual does, and for those who have been "wronged" the desire to punish those ho wronged them. This all leads to a society that literally can't continue to exist and collapses. It's odd that they picked 9 countries that have pretty much been in decline for hundreds of years. Religious beliefs has always tended be for younger, growing countries, such as the U.S.

I should 8 countries say, all except Canada. But I see more the continued multiculturalism as the issue with the decline of religion there. Just doesn't work well when you try to have distinct cultures in one country.

Regardless of what you believe personally, I think it's fair to say religion had a very distinct role to play in society and maybe it's time to understand the ramifications of a largely religionless society. What does it mean for morality... mental health, etc.

Look no farther than the failed communist states. Almost all have committed mass murder against their own citizens, in the name of atheism.

One thing we seem to fail to do, either intentionally or unintentionally, is to seem to understand the behavior of God, or his machinations. Putting Christian beliefs aside, there is no possible way for the human mind to understand infinities. Even my research in neural networks from the early 90's shows that a neural network can never ever achieve 100% of an object it's learning, the network just doesn't allow for it, and that's a finite object. We, as somewhat based on neural networks, have the same shortcomings. Our minds tend to fill in the blanks and accept things as complete truth even if we only understand that in part. Our minds just can't work with partials most of times. Finally to drive home one true belief in a God. Science has been claiming that most of the mass of the universe is "missing" ie. unobservable. How can we know its there? By it's effects on objects around it. That sounds pretty much like as we Christians have based God's involvement, by indirect proof.

Matter and positive energy produce the negative energy that is gravity.

In GR, gravity is not energy (either negative or positive). It's topolgy.

We use a Newtonian concept of gravitational potential energy as a matter of convenience, but this is used in regards to the kinetic energy between two or more bodies. Even then, it's a force - similar to magnetism (not energy, per se).

The belief in the hear-after has such important meaning in society and civilization that with out it I can only imagine a collapse of both.

You do realize that religions are the direct cause of civilization in many parts of the world today, and the prevention of its spread into others. Religions demand large families, causing overpopulation and inevitable oppression and conflict as a result.

Why is say this is society is based on retribution for wrong doings. Every wrong that is done to an individual that can't be repaid has always been pointed to an eventual balancing out either here or in Heaven/Hell.

Religion claims it is the source of morality but it is not. Internal altruism was selected for in tribal culture as it led to success in competition over resources with other tribes. We have learned to codify tribal law, and this is the source of justice and punishment today. Religions still harbor animosity toward those outside their tribes, and this endangers civilization.

This all leads to a society that literally can't continue to exist and collapses. It's odd that they picked 9 countries that have pretty much been in decline for hundreds of years,

Oh really? Whats your proof? Most of these countries on the list have a HIGHER living standard than the US. Dont get me started on the politics.

Proof is in History, and it isn't about Hgher living standards, its about global power and influence, the countries and society that they mentioned in the article, all except Canada had cultures and society's that have seen it's power and influence occur many centuries ago and have since been in decline.

Religious beliefs has always tended be for younger, growing countries, such as the U.S.

Now you just sound like a Troll.

Not really. I'm using reason, and nothing more. To some I guess reason can be Trollish.

You do realize that religions are the direct cause of civilization in many parts of the world today, and the prevention of its spread into others. Religions demand large families, causing overpopulation and inevitable oppression and conflict as a result.

I'm not familiar with that, would be interested if you can fathom a 'for instance' of when religion has done that in the past 200 years, it seems to have worked well since we are here, but I'm always open to learning. About the large families, i think it was somewhat true several thousand years ago when population wasn't a big issue, and power actually resides in big families. Several thousands of years ago it was important to have big families because you neede them to help farm and maintain livestock, more children you had, also back then survival rate wasn't very high for children compared to the 20th and 21st century. Today religion isn't as concerned about large families.

I would say that the two are linked and a very fundamental level as to be almost impossible to separate. If you believe in evolution, then it implies any meme, such as religion, would have died out long ago if it wasn't good for survival. And that's just a scientific basis

I would say that the two are linked and a very fundamental level as to be almost impossible to separate. If you believe in evolution, then it implies any meme, such as religion, would have died out long ago if it wasn't good for survival. And that's just a scientific basis

Religion is not morality. It may contain within it's trappings moral commandments/peculiar strictures - but religion is just a framework to carry these dictum's.

Morality without authority is simply the common practice of a culture, subject to constant change. It cannot serve to enlighten and stabilize a society because it is not stable itself or particularly enlightening. Often individuals, seeing that morality is malleable, create their own malleable morality. Such morality is meaningless because it has no authority nor stability.

The morality which comes from God is not subject to change. It tends to stabilize a society and enlightens those who follow it. It has real meaning and retains that meaning over the years.

The First Mitzvah, the command god gave to noah when he stepped off the boat; "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill up the earth." This is a central theme of most all religions. Aggression by reproduction. Teddy Roosevelt called it 'warfare of the cradle'.

We can see it's effects today throughout the fundsmentalist middle east, where women are still relegated to the role of making and raising babies. They are kept covered to discourage thoughts of straying or trading up. It was the same with xians a century ago.

They are assured that god will provide for their families if only they remain faithful. This usually means taking what they need from the infidel when their children begin to starve.

In the past it was a brilliant way of outgrowing the enemy and replacing battle losses faster than they could. Now it causes pops to explode in gaza, Kashmir, and any other trouble spot you choose to name. It is a Doomsday weapon.

morality based on common practice and/or personal preference is by definition malleable and cannot be sustained.

Eh, no. The morality of chimps, bonobos, and gorillas is based on an innate empathic/emotional apparatus. Humans are no different. We are instinctively moral within our family units and close-knit social groups. Every moral principle you've named is part and parcel of natural tribal rules, in every tribe, everywhere on Earth and throughout human history.

These principles do break down in case of sociopaths (individuals with damaged/malformed/malfunctioning emotional apparatus), or in case of warfare where the other side is dehumanized. Apropos which let's note that religion conspicuously fails to prevent the latter. WWI and WWII were launched and waged mostly by Christians against other Christians. Muslims and Christians have been at each other's throats for centuries. And both seem to congenitally have it in for the Jews and the Gypsies...

Proof is in History, and it isn't about Hgher living standards, its about global power and influence, the countries and society that they mentioned in the article, all except Canada had cultures and society's that have seen it's power and influence occur many centuries ago and have since been in decline.

Oh, please, isnt it because those countries are all very small, with the exception of Canada? Your argument is totaly absurd, you are talking about some of the wealthiest countries on the planet. If they wanted to, they could easily fire up the warmachine and conquer half the world. But they dont, because their morality is superior to primitive ramblings of a religious self-deluded psychopaths.

"Only those statements that can be empirically investigated can be known to be true or false" cannot itself be empirically investigated.

No you CAN assume it to be true and test it. It keeps passing and the alternative keeps failing. Induction just keeps working and enough to make worthwhile and it fails enough to show it is not always true. Only experiment, science, can tell the difference.

Do you have any statements that are known to be true that have not been empirically investigated? Without that you just engaging in naval gazing.

The Sun is NOT a black hole and Hitler was a Christian. A very lousy one but then so are many if not all of the Televangelists. Just not as lousy.

And where did all those Japanese Christians come from in WWII?

From Jesuits and Franciscans back in the 1500s. And Christians chose to kill them. That is, people that were mostly if not entirely protestants, chose to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki which was mostly Catholic.

It was the last unbombed port city so that was probably the real reason but my mother always thought it was anti-Catholic prejudice.

A major goal of Islam is world dominance. They are against everyone else.

I don't think dominance is quite the right word. They want everyone to be Islamic. Most Christians do as well and at one time Christians did sometimes engage in warfare to force people to become Christians.

Most Christians have gotten over that. Many Moslems have as well but they aren't the ones killing people.

Islam may someday cease being controlled by the psychos. But at the moment there are still way too may violent fanatics in charge. And many more are willing to accept the murder of any Moslem that has the wit to quit the religion. Few if any Christians are willing to do that.

Though I did have a Christian here want to attack me physically.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

"22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?" ecc3

-I really do love the bible. There's so much STUFF in there. Stuff for every occasion. If only the religious knew it's not about THEM.

I like this particular comment of yours, Otto.At first, I was going to ask the question:'What part of human do you accept without passing judgement'?, before reading your comment posted above.

I read a story about electrons. Swapping (exchanging)them with one another changes a quantum state - that state being unobservable anyway. That story was introduced to enable science to save the rest of the properties already reserved for the electron.

A major goal of Islam is world dominance. They are against everyone else.

I don't think dominance is quite the right word. They want everyone to be Islamic. Most Christians do as well and at one time Christians did sometimes engage in warfare to force people to become Christians.

No, Islam seeks dominance. They want the world ruled by Muslims under Sharia law -- a Caliphate.

Islam, from its creation, was spread by violence. It still is spread by violence.

Christians want to spread the message about Christ. They do not want to take over countries or rule anyone.

The influence of the Netherlands has never declined, if not grown. We have a really powerful position in the European Commision. We still have curacao, we still have lots of projects in africa and middle east. We still have a good position with japan. etc.

Instead of being an invasive force we have become a supportive force. All thanks to letting go of the religions, we have evolved to a higher morality. Just compare to the US, where you will be considered weird if you are not a christian to many people, especially the army. Look at how invasive they are with their operations.

Not really. I'm using reason, and nothing more. To some I guess reason can be Trollish.

You did not provide any information to support your claim which seems to be made up out of nothing. =Troll.

In GR, gravity is not energy (either negative or positive). It's topolgy.

The curving of space involves energy.

As I wrote that something else came to me.

Why would gravity have an equal and opposite energy to the sort of energy that matter is? The energy of the curvature of space by energy-matter, it seems to me at the moment, should be exactly the equal and opposite of the energy-matter causing the curvature.

Yes, I disagree with your statement and I think you are missing out the idea that energy is stored in fields when they are distorted, or changed in shape for those that recently freaked out over the word 'distorted'.

Where does that disagree with what I said. They want everyone to be a Moslem and that entails sharia for everyone. It isn't a matter of dominance any more than it is a matter of dominance to want everyone to be a Christian.

So you can have it your way IF you admit that Christian that want everyone to be a Christian is also a matter of dominance. I still won't agree with you on it but I will accept that you being even handed.

Islam, from its creation, was spread by violence.

Not quite. When it went to Mecca from Medina. It existed before that. Not a long time though.

They do not want to take over countries or rule anyone.

Lots of Christians want a national religion. Even here in the US. My money says In God We Trust. That is forcing religion on me. You just don't see it because you believe it to be correct. Or maybe you are aware and just tried to bluff me.

Oh, please, isnt it because those countries are all very small, with the exception of Canada? Your argument is totaly absurd, you are talking about some of the wealthiest countries on the planet. If they wanted to, they could easily fire up the warmachine and conquer half the world. But they dont, because their morality is superior to primitive ramblings of a religious self-deluded psychopaths.

Which one are you saying could conquer most of the world? Considering that these economies in due respect are incredibly small with Canada leading, And they have less than 10% of the U.S economy. By your statement I can plainly see, I wasn't the one being absurd.

The morality which comes from God is not subject to change. It tends to stabilize a society and enlightens those who follow it. It has real meaning and retains that meaning over the years.

Well said!

No, it's balderdash...

Clearly, moral understanding does and should change over time. As for that which 'comes from god' being static and unchanging, try contrasting the morals encapsulated in the Old Testament vs the New Testament.

For a moral view that is truly unchanged since 'god passed it down', you need only look at the extremism of some fundamental muslims - or some fundamental christans for that matter.

Organised religion simply reflects the morals of the society and the times.

So then, it should be OK for me to enslave you, and murder everyone in a town, including all the animals to, take their land. After all, Dogbert said morality doesn't change if use the word alleged by the men that wrote the Bible to be Jehovah's word. That assault is in the Bible and was alleged by the men that wrote it to be word of Jehovah. The slavery rules just seem to be there so I suppose those are the word of the men that wrote the Bible. Just like the rest of it.

So then, it should be OK for me to enslave you, and murder everyone in a town, including all the animals to, take their land. After all, Dogbert said morality doesn't change if use the word alleged by the men that wrote the Bible to be Jehovah's word. That assault is in the Bible and was alleged by the men that wrote it to be word of Jehovah. The slavery rules just seem to be there so I suppose those are the word of the men that wrote the Bible. Just like the rest of it.

Ethelred

Well if you truly understand the Bible, everything that took place in the old testament has been fulfilled in the new testament. That is why there is no burnt offerings anymore or why God does not ask for any offerings in this regard, Christ is to be the last offering for our sins. The Bible has to studied in it's entirety to be fully understood, taking bits and pieces out of context doesn't help understand the entire picture.

For a moral view that is truly unchanged since 'god passed it down', you need only look at the extremism of some fundamental muslims - or some fundamental christans for that matter.

Organised religion simply reflects the morals of the society and the times.

Religion just like Science can be used for good or bad, it depends on the people who wield it. I would never disagree that people have and will always do that as long as there are people. What I'm pushing is you don't look at the people, there will always be people who twist the truth to gain power over others. I'm saying look at the message not the messenger.

Which one are you saying could conquer most of the world? Considering that these economies in due respect are incredibly small with Canada leading, And they have less than 10% of the U.S economy. By your statement I can plainly see, I wasn't the one being absurd.

You are comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare countries of vastly different population, do it on a per-capita basis. That is what informs us about their true influence, in proportion to their size. Finland or Switzerland have as much influence as Ohio or Michigan. On the other hand, European Union could very well again conquer half the world, if it wanted to. There is no decline, and even if there is, it is a relative one, caused by the rise of developing nations instead of decline of developed ones (with atheistic China having the largest growth!).

everything that took place in the old testament has been fulfilled in the new testament.

Or the parts that weren't fulfilled where left out when it was all assembled or you could be wrong. Genesis said that Caine would wander the rest of his life and then in the same chapter he founds a city, has a wife and children that the Bible tracks for generations. So how was that failed prophecy get fixed in the New Testament?

That is why there is no burnt offerings anymore

What the heck do you think was being sold on the steps of the temple in the New Testament? And in case you have a dead nose they burn incense in some Christian religions

why God does not ask for any offerings in this regard

Doesn't ask for anything. Well he did tell Oral Roberts to collect 8 megabucks or he would kill him. But then I have this sneaking suspicion that Roberts lied his crying head off

Let me know when you find the part that patches all the flaws in Genesis.

taking bits and pieces out of context doesn't help understand the entire picture.

Then why do Christians do it so often?

So, out of curiosity as you claim to be a scientist. Do you take the Bible literally? You seem to think it is the word of Jehovah, am I wrong on that? If you do take it liberally when was the Flood?

And I did notice that you evaded my questions.

How can book that the had a god that demanded a mass murder be a source of morals? No evasions like oh you don't understand. Just tell us how that works. It makes no sense at all and nothing I have seen in the Bible has fixed that. Or the silliness that is Genesis one and two for that matter.

So was your religion. Christ invited violence upon himself by confronting priests on their most holy day and telling them he was not only their king but their GOD. In this manner he taught gens of xians how to martyr themselves for their cause. Not to mention that Constantine got his vision before a battle, thereby adopting the church as a conquest discipline, just like Islam.

Throwing ones own life away is every bit as violent as taking someone elses. Martyrdom is as essential to revolution as slaughter on the battlefield is to conquest. Thus we can see that the PRIMARY theme of the bible is conflict, and what it takes to get the people to participate in it gleefully. The OT addresses conquest, the NT revolution. In either case faith is essential to healthy and enthusiastic participating.

'Everyone knows the courage of libyans. We have our faith.' -freedom fighter

All of mathematics and geometry is known a priori, and not justified by the empirical experience of quantity. Generalizations from experience are always contextual, where they are only appropriate in that context, and they are always provisional, that is to say, we always hold out the possibility that the generalization in question may be false in some circumstances we haven't yet discovered.

Mathematics and geometry are not provisional nor contextual. We don't think "1+1=2 from everything I've seen so far, but it might turn out differently somewhere else." We think "1+1=2, and it doesn't matter what I see or anyone else sees. If someone thinks they see 1+1=1 or 1+1=3, then they are mistaken in interpreting their experience."

And induction fails its own test, that's why there a Problem of Induction. Assume a proposition gleaned from an inference from experience is true, go looking to see if it's false anywhere, and you will find that it's always false somewhere.

LMFAO. What? South America, Africa, and Canada? I guess surface area wise MAYBE. Gonna have a hard time doing that with only two aircraft carriers though...

Well, EU has the largest GDP in the world as a single entity. If we exclude other superpowers, namely the US, China and Japan, I think EU has the economic and technological resources to wage (conventional) war with the rest of the world with a solid chance of winning.

Anyway, this is all just mental masturbation. Economy and quality of life is more important than military might, and these are inversely correlated with religiousness:

Not a single bit of what I've said justifies any of the a priori arguments for the existence of "perfection" or "the maximally real thing" or the "Grand Designer" nor does it help associate the idea of a "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" with any sort of deity.

The world that we experience is an heuristic that we impose on sensory data. It is composed of the sense data, reconstructed and recombined according the rules of reconstruction and recombination that make up our kind of consciousness. Semantics/logic/mathematics are among the rules imposed on sense data to construct experience. Knowledge of mathematics does not come from the reconstructed sense data that is experience, but from inquiry into the structure of the reconstruction itself, a structure which is prior to any given experience shaped by it.

Of course, you must have some experience to be familiar with its structure, but the fact that all knowledge begins with experience does not mean it all comes from experience.

The answer will be "We don't know, but we do know it wasn't created by God."

Correct: All of nothingness nor somethingness was not created by God. If people would like to know something that is impossible for a deity to be able to do then a deity would never be able to create all of nothingness or somethingness, or vica versa delete all of nothingness or somethingness.

Well, EU has the largest GDP in the world as a single entity. If we exclude other superpowers, namely the US, China and Japan, I think EU has the economic and technological resources to wage (conventional) war with the rest of the world with a solid chance of winning.

And you'd be wrong. Air power is everything in modern warfare as is being demonstrated amply in Libya at the moment. The EU has TWO aircraft carriers, that's not much force projection.

The Brits found this out the hard way when a third world country like Argentina gave them so much grief in the Falklands war.

Moreover there is no "EU Army", good luck with command and control issues.

Lastly the EU is NOT a superpower, much less China or Japan. There is ONE world superpower ATM and the EU isn't it. You have to have more than just economics to be a superpower. When was the last time any European nation easily projected it's military influence without US aid?

The answer will be "We don't know, but we do know it wasn't created by God."

Correct: All of nothingness nor somethingness was not created by God. If people would like to know something that is impossible for a deity to be able to do then a deity would never be able to create all of nothingness or somethingness, or vica versa delete all of nothingness or somethingness.

LMFAO, that's only ONE thing we're sure a deity COULD do and ONE of many thing we're sure the natural world CAN'T.

-And that's where I usually stop reading, at the first philo word. Maybe it would help your credibility TM if you referenced sources within your discipline so we might not suspect that you are making this stuff up yourself?

I mean, you profess to no -isms and what you say is largely indecipherable, so it might be educational to provide a source for further study? Like most other posters here tend to do? Thanks

-And that's where I usually stop reading, at the first philo word. Maybe it would help your credibility TM if you referenced sources within your discipline so we might not suspect that you are making this stuff up yourself? I mean, you profess to no -isms and what you say is largely indecipherable, so it might be educational to provide a source for further study? Like most other posters here tend to do? Thanks

I did make this stuff up! "I will release no rhyme before its time."

I have another one for you. I have a theory I created several years back called Man-made Soul Theory (MST) in that if we did not have souls then humans would create them for themselves and for future generations, and humans would create other universes I refer to as Man-made Universe Theories (MUTs).

Besides Newton being a great mathematician, he was also very religious and predicted World War Three will occur around the year 2060. Source: A paper written by Newton found in storage in Israel around 1999.

Something from nothing. It can exist mathematically so why shouldn't it exist?

Because with nothing there are no zeros, negatives or positives, though nothing is about as close to zero as one can get.

Besides Newton being a great mathematician, he was also very religious

Like I said he was a suckup. Actually...

"'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'. Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith - which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs." Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser, possibly an Arian and almost certainly an antitrinitarian. In an age notable for its religious intolerance, there are few public expressions of Newton's radical views, most notably his refusal to take holy orders and his refusal, on his death bed, to take the sacrament when it was offered to him."

I like that witty sophist stuff. After I typed the statement about Newton I said to myself, I do not know how religious Newton was, except he probably used the book of Revelation to come to his year 2060 prediction. Before I heard about that I thought it may happen around 2050. Nice to know we have extra time to figure out how to avoid it from happening, unless it happens sooner than expected!

I'm just curious if the countries in this study included a blank option for those of minority religions to fill in. I ask this because I am aware of the lack of such an option for those who don't fit into the major groups. Also, when did these nations begin to add the option for atheism or non-religious affiliation? That in itself could change the outcome entirely.

I read a story about electrons. Swapping (exchanging)them with one another changes a quantum state - that state being unobservable anyway. That story was introduced to enable science to save the rest of the properties already reserved for the electron.

...that philosophy (of math) was introduced to enable science to save the rest of the properties arising from the philosophy (of math) interpreted and already reserved from science for the electron.

It works both ways, Otto. We both want to call something that is mutually beneficial exactly that, what you described, using your own words:

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?" ecc3

-I really do love the bible. There's so much STUFF in there. Stuff for every occasion. If only the religious knew it's not about THEM.

"English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian. His Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin for "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"; usually called the Principia), published in 1687, is one of the most important scientific books ever written."

-AND he had the common sense, despite all the propaganda and social pressure, to conclude that if jesus ever in fact existed, he was most undoubtedly just another human being like the rest of us.

Try learning more than a little on a topic when dealing with an expert in the field.

What field are you standing in? 'Cause you certainly aint no expert in rocketry!

You're essentially asserting a system in a state of uniform motion, by acting on itself, can change it's momentum! Didn't you ever hear of Newton's first law of motion?

"1.First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant velocity."

Thrasymachus, Pyle, and Deesky also obviously know nothing of rocketry or relativity, as evidenced by the rankings they've given. And they, along with Skeptic_Heretic, are some of the same bloggers who give the creationists a hard time!

You don't need to be an expert to know basic physics. The general expression for gravitational potential energy is U=-GMm/r. G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the first object, m is the mass of the second object, and r is how far apart they are. Notice that negative sign right in front of the gravitational constant? That's right, that means that the gravitational potential energy of any two masses not touching and not separated by infinity is negative. It always takes work, that is, the expenditure of positive energy, to separate two masses in space. This means their energetic relationship to each other is always negative.

Ethelred's argument was that gravity, itself, was negative energy. He wrote:

Matter and positive energy produce the negative energy that is gravity.

You only reiterate my reply wherein I wrote:

In GR, gravity is not energy (either negative or positive). It's topology.

We use a Newtonian concept of gravitational potential energy as a matter of convenience, but this is used in regards to the kinetic energy between two or more bodies. Even then, it's a force - similar to magnetism (not energy, per se).

@Ubavontuba:What may be going on here is a distinction between GR gravity and quantum gravity? Quantum gravity is a force. GR gravity is topolgy, as you referred to it, though some are adding negative energy to the topolgy or I assume that is what they are doing?

And they, along with Skeptic_Heretic, are some of the same bloggers who give the creationists a hard time!

I consider myself more of a theistic evolutionist than a creationist. Please see the attached Wikipedia link:

ubavontuba:Gravity is a force. Not energy. No disagreement from me, or Ethelred I am sure, if the question were multiple choice. However, his point, was that gravity provides a balance in the universe to matter and "positive energy". That is speculative and nowhere near proven, but based on a solid understanding of current knowledge, AFAIK. The negativity in the GR field equations as well as in any future QG theory is indisputable. Sign is convention.

Now, your response to SH's suggestion to look at the "balanced equation of relativity" was ignorant if not idiotic. (Note: balanced equation is a bit redundant, but definitely a well accepted term.) Please admit, to yourself, that you blew it with the E=mc^2 bit and move on.

Lastly, I am not an expert.

(Don't bother with the closed vs. open system and jumping. Have a private conversation with someone if you care why you're wrong there too.)

@Ubavontuba:What may be going on here is a distinction between GR gravity and quantum gravity? Quantum gravity is a force. GR gravity is topolgy, as you referred to it, though some are adding negative energy to the topolgy or I assume that is what they are doing?

It depends on what theory you're using as to whether it's described as a force or topology. However, it isn't "energy" (negative, or otherwise)

And they, along with Skeptic_Heretic, are some of the same bloggers who give the creationists a hard time!

I consider myself more of a theistic evolutionist than a creationist. Please see the attached Wikipedia link:

Yes, I know of it. I'm so inclined myself. However, I'm between agnostic and theist. I don't know that God is real, but I choose to believe because He's worth believing in. I'm like a kid believing in Santa. Believing, in and of itself, is magical.

"1.First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant velocity."

By the way. Conservation of Momentum is the Second Law, not the First.Second Law: A body of mass m subject to a net force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.The First Law is Inertia.

The negativity in the GR field equations as well as in any future QG theory is indisputable.

No. Again, you're all confusing a consequence of gravity (having to do with kinetic energy interactions), with gravity (the entire field at once) itself.

balanced equation is a bit redundant, but definitely a well accepted term.

No. It is not. Google "balanced equation of relativity" (with the quotes) and you get absolutely no hits. Instead, it directs you to a search without the quotes. And the E=mc^2 bit was simply to demonstrate how meaningless his phrase was. As you point out (finally), equations, by definition are (generally) "balanced."

(Don't bother with the closed vs. open system and jumping. Have a private conversation with someone if you care why you're wrong there too.)

LOL! So why don't we pack space probes with mechanical jumping beans? According to you, they could accelerate forever that way! LOL!

By the way. Conservation of Momentum is the Second Law, not the First.Second Law: A body of mass m subject to a net force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.The First Law is Inertia.

The third law is where Newton derived the conservation of momentum. The second law is about applying an EXTERNAL force and acceleration. The first law is relevant to isolated systems (as we're discussing in this case).

"Newton used the third law to derive the law of conservation of momentum;"

And you think that's different than a person jumping up and down on the earth? Fine. Put the jumping beans on the outside of the space probe and attach them with rubberbands (to substitute for gravity). Maybe you think that'll work? LOL!

C'mon, I thought you were in the know here.

Be more specific. I can't know your mind. And, I have minimal confidence you know the subject.

The EFE.

(Just for fun) is EFE an acronym for Escape from Earth?

Anyway, "relativity" is obviously much broader than "the EFE" (Einstein Field Equations).

Usually not "balanced equation of relativity", but E=mc^2 wasn't you demonstrating anything but your ignorance.

You mean SH's ignorance (and obviously yours too).

Onto the closed system. Jumping beans. Good one! ... at the risk of plagiarizing SH, /facepalm

So now you know how I feel. It's no more ridiculous than SH's contention that you can change the earth's linear momentum by jumping up and down on it. It's the magnitude of the scale (combined with your limited imagination) that prevents you from seeing the similarity.

Uba, why keep going? Enough on the gravity thing. It is negative. Get over it. Keep pounding away on your dictionary while the point Ethelred was making keeps circling over your head.

Only in chemistry! D'oh!

Nice one Homer.

As for jumping beans, your analogy doesn't match. I get what you are saying, and in the jumping bean example you are right. However in SH's jumping exercise, the situation is much more complicated and you are wrong, even if only in the utterly ridiculous extreme, as I am sure the original comment was intended.

Let's see. I am going to limit myself to the parts germane to my input, which actually have very little to do with the article being commented under. (I'll try to be as biased as possible.)

Ethelred made a valid, but I think poorly worded, point that currently accepted theory leans towards the idea that the universe is something from nothing. "Matter and positive energy produce the negative energy that is gravity." In Ethelred's defense, it is a difficult thing to get across in a few words to a layman.

Quote miner uba correctly pointed out that gravity isn't energy, entirely missing the point being made by Ethelred and thereby derailing the conversation.

Eth returned in a pretty decent comment that should have settled the issue and avoided the side rail.

But no! Uba brings it up again later opening the door to knob and SH.

Here SH blunders into referring to the EFE as the "balanced equation of relativity". Poor wording again, but at least SH was probably drunk so...

...ubavontuba signals to everyone to ignore all of her previous comments regarding relativity and space time curvature...

citing E=mc^2 rather than an equation with gravity in it that would be germane to the conversation.

Here I come in with my nasty comment, already quoted, and try to steer uba to the EFE.

Hilarity ensues with uba thumping her dictionary while I and SH try to talk sense. We get further derailed by uba's misunderstanding of a closed system vs. an open system, a really bad analogy, and plug configuration on lamps used before 1900. Finally SH and I both resort to throwing our hands up and now I say:

Nevertheless the warping of space can, in GR, carry energy in the form of gravitational waves. Assuming we ever manage to measure the theoretical waves and show they exist then we will have real evidence that the warping of space by matter involves energy. Since the equations have it as negative then we will have evidence supporting the idea of matter-energy and gravity having opposite energy signs.

So yes it is presently speculation but if we don't find gravity wave then GR is wrong and we have to use a different theory. For which it will be difficult to avoid having negative energy involved with gravity.

Nevertheless the warping of space can, in GR, carry energy in the form of gravitational waves. Assuming we ever manage to measure the theoretical waves and show they exist then we will have real evidence that the warping of space by matter involves energy. Since the equations have it as negative then we will have evidence supporting the idea of matter-energy and gravity having opposite energy signs.

That's not quite right. Gravitational waves are essentially caused by a spacetime drag on rapidly accelerating bodies - like a boat wake.

So yes it is presently speculation but if we don't find gravity wave then GR is wrong and we have to use a different theory. For which it will be difficult to avoid having negative energy involved with gravity.

Gravitational waves are essentially caused by a spacetime drag on rapidly accelerating bodies - like a boat wake.

Yes. And energy is still drained away from the bodies. Rapid acceleration is not needed except to make a detectable wave. Since the energy is removed it must be transmitted since the waves are, perhaps, detectable they must be what is carrying away energy. They can't do that without CONTAINING energy in the wave. How can it be contained? My thinking is that the warping of space stores the energy.

The Hulse-Taylor binary system already suggests they're real.

Yes and that is what I was thinking of. So that is evidence that the distortion of space can contain energy. Though in that case it seems to me it would have to be a positive energy.

Which is a bit annoying but electrons have a negative charge even though they carry energy. I am not sure if that is a deal breaker or not since a moving field may have different properties than a static field.

Short comment:Religion is an evolved socio-cultural phenomenon. Thus, religion is not eternal or static. It has a beginning, is subject to development, will have an end. Thus, it is not "nonsense" to assume that religion, i.e. structured spirituality, has its beginnings when humans began to exhibit socio-cultural structures beyond family, horde, and clan. This happened with the neolithic revolution when settlements required more sophisticated management than a horde and social structures became more sophisticated. As a consequence, the spiritualism of former (palaeolithic) times became more sophisticated and evolved over the course of several millennia into more sophisticated religious structures. That's why religionism is a product of the neolithic age and has not been present in palaeolithic times.

Since the energy is removed it must be transmitted since the waves are, perhaps, detectable they must be what is carrying away energy. They can't do that without CONTAINING energy in the wave. How can it be contained? My thinking is that the warping of space stores the energy.

Right. Essentially, the accelerating mass lends its kinetic energy into producing 'more' gravity than its mass/energy would if it was in uniform motion.

Yes and that is what I was thinking of. So that is evidence that the distortion of space can contain energy.

There remains some controversy on the subject, and as you indicated above, if the eventual gravitatational wave detector results don't match predictions, GR will need to be revisited. The 'safe' money is always on GR though.

Not from the bodies themselves, but rather from their kinetic energy/relative momentum.

I am talking about the pair as a whole. The pair has a decrease in total energy above and beyond any cooling that is going on. For a moment I was wondering where the momentum is going but if the pair are tidally locked then each would have a increase in their rotation rate as the orbit duration decreased.

I NEVER said there was no acceleration nor did I say anything that involved uniform motion. YOU said 'rapid' and I said it did not need to be rapid. Binary pairs ARE undergoing acceleration. They are orbiting a common center. When they get close the acceleration will be rapid.

Essentially, the accelerating mass lends its kinetic energy into producing 'more' gravity than its mass/energy would if it was in uniform motion.

It is the kinetic energy that is being lost via the gravity waves. The accelerating masses generate a gravity wave which carries away energy.

Supposedly, yes. But in practice, it's been undetectable (so far).

You posted the link to the evidence. The detectors we have built have not detected any waves but they MUST be occurring to take energy out of that binary system, especially since they are acting in accordance with the predictions of GR. Either that or there is something else going on that mimics GR and that sort of thing is usually scraped away with The Razor.

The whole concept is based upon the propagational speed of gravity, which is supposedly limited to the speed of light.

The binary pair is acting as if GR is right and gravity propagates at the speed of light. Which might make several warp drive concepts involving exotic matter invalid. Which is annoying.

I NEVER said there was no acceleration nor did I say anything that involved uniform motion. YOU said 'rapid' and I said it did not need to be rapid.

Yes. I believe the Earth/Sun system was calculated to generate about 5,000 watts, in one of my references.

It is the kinetic energy that is being lost via the gravity waves.

Yes.

You posted the link to the evidence. The detectors we have built have not detected any waves but they MUST be occurring to take energy out of that binary system, especially since they are acting in accordance with the predictions of GR.

I have considered an interesting hypothesis regarding difficulties in detecting them directly. They simply might not be detectable in situ.

Which might make several warp drive concepts involving exotic matter invalid. Which is annoying.

During the intense blast of gamma rays, known as GRB070201, the 4-km and 2-km gravitational-wave interferometers at the Hanford facility were in science mode and collecting data. They did not, however, measure any gravitational waves in the aftermath of the burst.

That non-detection was itself significant.

Only if they have a baseline of actual real detections. So lets see what they have detected.

They sure talk a lot about the magnificent specs and the stunning achievements in up time and sensitivity and NOT ONE BLOODY THING TO SHOW FOR IT thus making the claims mere puffery. They talk all around the elephant in the room.

Theoretically the next generation of laser interferometer detectors should actually detect multiple events per year. Then they should have a baseline of REAL observations rather than a baseline of nothing.

Take a look at what they are trying to detect. Movement of less than the diameter of an atom.

Excuse me. I got that wrong.

One THOUSANDTH of the diameter of a atomic NUCLEUS.

Right. They're trying to detect variances in spacetime, with artifacts of spacetime.

Imagine a two-dimensional universe. Say, the surface of a piece of paper. Light is restricted to the the 2D plane and light is controlled by it. A 2D observer can only see along the the surface of the paper. Bend the paper, the light bends with it, but the 2D observer wouldn't notice a difference. To him, he still sees light simply coming to him from across his universe. Crinkle the paper, same result. Pull it, tease it, do what you will, same result. The length of the plane, and hence the 2D observer's perception of what he sees, never changes.

Gravity waves are crinkles in spacetime, but spacetime controls light and any in situ measuring device. How would you see the crinkles?

Now imagine a 2D universe imbedded in on a 3D sphere. But don't fold or crease or crinkle. Pulse the sphere. This will change the length of any paths.

Similarly warping the space-time of the paths of a laser interferometer should change the interference patterns.

The catch is you have to see it AND another similar machine BOTH detect a change at very nearly the same time to be sure the theory fits the Universe we live in. And none the experiments have had a reasonable expectation of finding anything. The Advanced LIGO is SUPPOSED to detect events, multiple events, every year.

Here's where you miss the subtleties of GR. By bending the paper, you introduce compressive and torsional stress into it. This stress will affect the way light propagates through your paper (in the same way, e.g., as it would affect the way sound propagates through the paper.)

Crinkle the paper, same result.

If you crinkle it, this would introduce such discontinuities in local properties of the metric that you might even get internal reflection or at least refraction of light as it crosses each sharp bend. And so on.

I'm not saying that the way GR models spacetime and electromagnetism is necessarily correct in every way (though so far, it has succeeded brilliantly.) Yet according to GR, gravitational waves both exist and are detectable -- yes, even by "in situ measuring device".

This would be a model of a closed universe. It's been determined our universe is open.

Its an example, same as you did but dealing with the warping of space. I could have just as easily and effectively used a saddle shape. It matters not in this instance whether the Universe is open or closed.

But if the instrument used to measure it similarly expanded, how would you know?

The light is the instrument. It would change frequency or the interference change. At least that is how it supposed to happen. Which is why I said a baseline of DETECTION is needed.

Light is affected by gravity too.

That is the whole idea.

. Any displacement of spacetime is going to cause a sympathetic displacement of photons.

That is my point. If they don't get events this time they (we as well)have to change their(our) thinking about gravity waves and thus a lot other stuff. The earlier tests were only useful for learning how to make it work and advancing the technology. Actual detection was not expected so the claims that they constrained anything by not detecting anything were either nonsense or in expectation of actually detecting something someday.

The light is the instrument. It would change frequency or the interference change.

But the observer would change right along with it. Observation itself, is relative.

They are dealing with light as a wave via interference.

Waves are similarly relative to the observer and all are imbedded in the same spacetime. That is, if the wavelengths increase (from an external observers point of view), but time correspondingly changes for the in situ observer, his result is null.

If they don't get events this time they (we as well)have to change their(our) thinking about gravity waves and thus a lot other stuff.

Oh, I don't know about that. It could simply be that the premise of the experiment is incorrect. Perhaps, decaying orbits are the only proof we might experience.

I certainly may be wrong here though... I hope I'm wrong, 'cause it'd sure be neat to have positive results. But even if they're negative, I wouldn't necessarily believe that'd wash out GR.

No, it will actually affect the properties of spacetime itself. They can affect propagation of light just like a changing refraction index in an optical crystal.

For instance, consider that light bends around a massive object (such as the Sun, for instance.) Now imagine that as the photon is traversing that curve, the thing causing its trajectory to bend is not a static gravitational well, but instead a traveling gravitational disturbance.

The equivalence principle applies. Local spacetime will always appear flat.

Not exactly. The equivalence principle in warped spacetime applies only over infinitesimally small volumes. Photons and wavefronts are not infinitesimally small (though here things get hazy, as we venture into quantum gravity.)

The space and time of your measuring device is equally affected.

No; look up "relativity of simultaneity" -- goes all the way back to Special Relativity...

Not quite. The wave isn't going to hit all parts of both legs of the interferometer simultaneously. Moreover, gravity waves predicted by GR have anisotropic effect within their plane of oscillation (which is orthogonal to their direction of propagation): while alternatively stretching (and speeding up time) along one axis, they compress (and slow down time) along the other axis. This has the net effect of delaying photons in the two orthogonal arms of the interferometer by different amounts as the wave passes through the apparatus. The precise effect would depend on the angle at which the wave hits the plane of the interferometer, as well as the wave's wavelength and phase at the time. At any rate, this is what creates the detectable signal: the wave temporarily disrupts the perfect synchronization between the interferometer's two arms.

As the wave moves at c, information about it cannot supersede (or, essentially be separate from) its passing. There is no outside observer to see a differential.

It's like boats traveling at full speed on a straight line, encountering a sudden rogue wave, which by the time it has passed, knocks the boats off-course.

The mechanics here are vastly different. The boats themselves aren't immersed in the wave and they don't wave in harmony with the wave. They are affected by, but aren't a part of the wave.

This type of thinking is why I think the experiment will fail. I think it's very difficult for people to distinguish between an inside verses outside observer (in this case). The detector is not separate from the wave. Essentially, the detector is the wave (too). How does a wave detect itself?

I feel this way since an orthogonal effect would essentially be a secondary spacetime wave which would have to take energy from the primary waves. And then, these waves would in turn have their own orthogonal effects... and so on... Essentially, gravity waves couldn't get very far before diminishing to the infinitesimal.

The effect of a passing gravitational wave is nicely illustrated in Wiki:

Yes, but I have a problem with this animation. It depicts a lengthening, parallel to the waves.

Think of a flexible ring riding on ocean waves. From above, it will appear to contract (ovalize) perpendicular to the wave (from wave crest to wave crest), but it will not appear to lengthen parallel to the wave. In fact, the circle does not change shape at all in it's 2D plane (the surface of the water). It's only that you're viewing it from above (as an outside observer) that allows you to perceive the waves and perceive a change in shape.

As the wave moves at c, information about it cannot supersede (or, essentially be separate from) its passing.

Uba, I think this is where you are getting stuck. With only a source and a collector I think your point is valid, but that is not how an interferometer works. In the two armed interferometer case, that's only true if the wave bisects the angle between the test masses if moving in the same plane.

Yes, but I have a problem with this animation. It depicts a lengthening, parallel to the waves.

The points in the animation are in a 2-D plane. The wave is moving orthogonally through it, not parallel to any of the points. The animated effect is caused by polarization of the wave.

Essentially, the detector is the wave

I don't think so. The wave passes through the detector. Different parts of the detector are affected differently by the wave, except in the special cases. Unless, of course, the mainstream views of gravity are wrong.

In the two armed interferometer case, that's only true if the wave bisects the angle between the test masses if moving in the same plane.

I disagree. I've already discussed anisotropic versus orthogonal effects. In my opinion, if one tunnel contracts more than another (as is expected), the clock for the spacetime wave will exactly make up the difference - leaving no telltale phase differential.

The wave is moving orthogonally through it, not parallel to any of the points.

Okay, so the wave is passing through yz as it propagates along x. At least the animation makes more sense now. I still think the clock will make up the difference.

Different parts of the detector are affected differently by the wave, except in the special cases.

But it's not just length changes. It's spacetime changes - and it's all in situ.

btw, great discussion

Thanks! I've obviously enjoyed it (perhaps too much).

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.

Javascript is currently disabled in your web browser. For full site functionality, it is necessary to enable Javascript.
In order to enable it, please see these instructions.